Re: Parallel Seq Scan vs kernel read ahead

From: Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Parallel Seq Scan vs kernel read ahead
Date: 2020-05-20 23:50:45
Message-ID: CAEudQArRXoNxtoBjcYQzKe7N+tP11OtcRhiirHwt9ikgiXWxEA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Em qua., 20 de mai. de 2020 às 20:48, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
escreveu:

> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 11:15 AM Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > postgres=# set max_parallel_workers_per_gather = 0;
> > Time: 227238,445 ms (03:47,238)
> > postgres=# set max_parallel_workers_per_gather = 1;
> > Time: 138027,351 ms (02:18,027)
>
> Ok, so it looks like NT/NTFS isn't suffering from this problem.
> Thanks for testing!
>
Maybe it wasn’t clear, the tests were done with your patch applied.

regards,
Ranier Vilela

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2020-05-21 00:02:36 Re: Parallel Seq Scan vs kernel read ahead
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2020-05-20 23:47:47 Re: Parallel Seq Scan vs kernel read ahead