Re: GIN data corruption bug(s) in 9.6devel

From: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: GIN data corruption bug(s) in 9.6devel
Date: 2016-02-25 16:56:00
Message-ID: 56CF3220.7060402@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 02/25/2016 05:32 PM, Teodor Sigaev wrote:
>>> Well, turns out there's a quite significant difference, actually. The
>>> index sizes I get (quite stable after multiple runs):
>>>
>>> 9.5 : 2428 MB
>>> 9.6 + alone cleanup : 730 MB
>>> 9.6 + pending lock : 488 MB
>
> In attach modified alone_cleanup patch which doesn't break cleanup
> process as it does pending_lock patch but attached patch doesn't touch a
> lock management.
>
> Tomas. if you can, pls, repeat test with this patch. If not, I will try
> to do it, but later.

I'll do that once the system I used for that gets available - right now
it's running other benchmarks.

regards

--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Gabe F. Rudy 2016-02-25 17:48:10 FDW handling count(*) through AnalyzeForeignTable or other constant time push-down
Previous Message Jacek Wielemborek 2016-02-25 16:45:44 Re: Request for Code Review: BPGSQL