| From: | Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Russell Smith <mr-russ(at)pws(dot)com(dot)au>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jeffrey Baker <jwbaker(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: parallel pg_restore - WIP patch |
| Date: | 2008-09-30 04:13:06 |
| Message-ID: | 48E1A752.2060807@rhyme.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> Unfortunately, it quite possibly would. You would not be able to build
> two indexes on the same table in parallel, even though they wouldn't
> have conflicting locks.
I suppose so, but:
1. By the same logic it might speed things up; it might build two
completely separate indexes and thereby avoid (some kind of) contention.
In any case, it would most likely do *something* else. It should only
reduce performance if (a) it can do nothing or (b) there is a benefit in
building multiple indexes on the same table at the same time.
2. Perhaps if there are a limited number of items that share
dependencies but which are known to be OK (ie. indexes), maybe list them
in the inner loop as exceptions and allow them to run parallel. This
would mean a failure to list a new TOC item type would result in worse
performance rather than a crash.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robins Tharakan | 2008-09-30 06:19:31 | Function management in PG |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2008-09-30 03:59:23 | Re: parallel pg_restore - WIP patch |