From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Parallel Seq Scan vs kernel read ahead |
Date: | 2020-06-25 15:33:20 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZJSNrz55+OwgJCySKt3EnvUfwnS7GzL-jjLCyo36O1mw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:53 PM David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> In summary, based on these tests, I don't think we're making anything
> worse in regards to synchronize_seqscans if we cap the maximum number
> of blocks to allocate to each worker at once to 8192. Perhaps there's
> some argument for using something smaller than that for servers with
> very little RAM, but I don't personally think so as it still depends
> on the table size and It's hard to imagine tables in the hundreds of
> GBs on servers that struggle with chunk allocations of 16MB. The
> table needs to be at least ~70GB to get a 8192 chunk size with the
> current v2 patch settings.
Nice research. That makes me happy. I had a feeling the maximum useful
chunk size ought to be more in this range than the larger values we
were discussing before, but I didn't even think about the effect on
synchronized scans.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2020-06-25 15:34:42 | Re: Open Item: Should non-text EXPLAIN always show properties? |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2020-06-25 15:28:29 | Re: xid wraparound danger due to INDEX_CLEANUP false |