| From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum |
| Date: | 2019-02-26 10:20:00 |
| Message-ID: | CAD21AoDDb3WLJA71UdVpkRhr3O9cdOOe2o8fbyOZ=cwsk0RGCw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 1:35 PM Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 9:17 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you. Attached the rebased patch.
>
>
> I ran some performance tests to compare the parallelism benefits,
Thank you for testing!
> but I got some strange results of performance overhead, may be it is
> because, I tested it on my laptop.
Hmm, I think the parallel vacuum would help for heavy workloads like a
big table with multiple indexes. In your test result, all executions
are completed within 1 sec, which seems to be one use case that the
parallel vacuum wouldn't help. I suspect that the table is small,
right? Anyway I'll also do performance tests.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Richard Guo | 2019-02-26 10:24:36 | Re: NOT IN subquery optimization |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2019-02-26 09:41:02 | pgbench MAX_ARGS |