Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic
Date: 2009-07-31 16:49:28
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote: 
> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
>> Rebased to correct for pg_indent changes.
> Thanks for doing that.
No problem.  I think I still owe you a few.  :-)
> Attached is a further small improvement that gets rid of the
> find_ready_items() scans.  After re-reading the patch I realized
> that it wasn't *really* avoiding O(N^2) behavior ... but this
> version does.
I'll run a fresh set of benchmarks.
By the way, I muffed the setup of last night's benchmarks, so no new
information there, except that in the process of reviewing the attempt
I discovered I was guilty of making a false assertion yesterday, based
on remembering incorrectly.  The logs show that the six hour dump to
custom format was over the LAN.  :-(  I hope I didn't waste too much
of people's time by saying otherwise.  I'll try to get some numbers on
the same-box dump soon.  (Note to self: never, ever trust your memory;
always confirm.)

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kevin FieldDate: 2009-07-31 17:29:15
Subject: Re: 8.4 win32 shared memory patch
Previous:From: Marko TiikkajaDate: 2009-07-31 16:26:53
Subject: Re: Using results from INSERT ... RETURNING

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group