From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2019-03-20 04:11:12 |
Message-ID: | CAD21AoDpRSo7hB900X6oUmukYZ0rOF1mG-Gz657wKjCnw1hLjw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 7:29 PM Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
<horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>
> At Tue, 19 Mar 2019 17:51:32 +0900, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in <CAD21AoCUZQmyXrwDw57ejoR-j1QrGqm_vrQKOkif_aJK4Gih6Q(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>
> > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:39 AM Haribabu Kommi
> > <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > The performance results are good. Do we want to add the recommended
> > > size in the document for the parallel option? the parallel option for smaller
> > > tables can lead to performance overhead.
> > >
> >
> > Hmm, I don't think we can add the specific recommended size because
> > the performance gain by parallel lazy vacuum depends on various things
> > such as CPU cores, the number of indexes, shared buffer size, index
> > types, HDD or SSD. I suppose that users who want to use this option
> > have some sort of performance problem such as that vacuum takes a very
> > long time. They would use it for relatively larger tables.
>
> Agree that we have no recommended setting, but I strongly think that documentation on the downside or possible side effect of this feature is required for those who are to use the feature.
>
I think that the side effect of parallel lazy vacuum would be to
consume more CPUs and I/O bandwidth, but which is also true for the
other utility command (i.e. parallel create index). The description of
max_parallel_maintenance_worker documents such things[1]. Anything
else to document?
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Langote | 2019-03-20 04:37:13 | selecting from partitions and constraint exclusion |
Previous Message | Euler Taveira | 2019-03-20 03:27:48 | Re: Special role for subscriptions |