From: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: BAS_BULKREAD vs read stream |
Date: | 2025-04-07 19:24:43 |
Message-ID: | CAAKRu_b7ROR0SB6fSdRBzwJ4peWEOqYGBCL0G1AuKe0Z+JMoYA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Apr 6, 2025 at 4:15 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> I think we should consider increasing BAS_BULKREAD TO something like
> Min(256, io_combine_limit * (effective_io_concurrency + 1))
Do you mean Max? If so, this basically makes sense to me.
Overall, I think even though the ring is about reusing buffers, we
have to think about how many IOs that reasonably is -- which this
formula does.
You mentioned testing with 8MB, did you see some sort of clipp
anywhere between 256 and 8MB?
> I experimented some whether SYNC_SCAN_REPORT_INTERVAL should be increased, and
> couldn't come up with any benefits. It seems to hurt fairly quickly.
So, how will you deal with it when the BAS_BULKREAD ring is bigger?
- Melanie
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2025-04-07 19:48:20 | Re: Adding pg_dump flag for parallel export to pipes |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2025-04-07 19:24:42 | Re: AIO v2.5 |