| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(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: | 2020-07-26 09:09:07 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvrpLa5NEJp_RpPPnJbGJF90pM7kZizwjbABAqAW1C24Rw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 at 12:24, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> If we've not seen any performance regressions within 1 week, then I
> propose that we (pending final review) push this to allow wider
> testing. It seems we're early enough in the PG14 cycle that there's a
> large window of time for us to do something about any reported
> performance regressions that come in.
I did that final review which ended up in quite a few cosmetic changes.
Functionality-wise, it's basically that of the v2 patch with the
PARALLEL_SEQSCAN_MAX_CHUNK_SIZE set to 8192.
I mentioned that we might want to revisit giving users some influence
on the chunk size, but we'll only do so once we see some conclusive
evidence that it's worthwhile.
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andy Fan | 2020-07-26 09:36:29 | Re: Difference for Binary format vs Text format for client-server communication |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-07-26 07:42:06 | Re: expose parallel leader in CSV and log_line_prefix |