| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mahendra Singh Thalor <mahi6run(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Langote <langote_amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum |
| Date: | 2020-01-16 05:10:55 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1K8KHK7jLwzfx+dvHZmDy1+pnZzVuNWWnetNuuCKnzn2g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 10:11 AM Mahendra Singh Thalor
<mahi6run(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 08:22, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > > 2.
> > > I checked time taken by vacuum.sql test. Execution time is almost same
> > > with and without v45 patch.
> > >
> > > Without v45 patch:
> > > Run1) vacuum ... ok 701 ms
> > > Run2) vacuum ... ok 549 ms
> > > Run3) vacuum ... ok 559 ms
> > > Run4) vacuum ... ok 480 ms
> > >
> > > With v45 patch:
> > > Run1) vacuum ... ok 842 ms
> > > Run2) vacuum ... ok 808 ms
> > > Run3) vacuum ... ok 774 ms
> > > Run4) vacuum ... ok 792 ms
> > >
> >
> > I see some variance in results, have you run with autovacuum as off.
> > I was expecting that this might speed up some cases where parallel
> > vacuum is used by default.
>
> I think, this is expected difference in timing because we are adding
> some vacuum related test. I am not starting server manually(means I am
> starting server with only default setting).
>
Can you once test by setting autovacuum = off? The autovacuum leads
to variability in test timing.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2020-01-16 05:20:57 | Re: [HACKERS] WAL logging problem in 9.4.3? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-01-16 05:09:53 | Re: SlabCheck leaks memory into TopMemoryContext |