From: | Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Anastasia Lubennikova <lubennikovaav(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-Dev <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem |
Date: | 2017-08-18 11:39:15 |
Message-ID: | CAGTBQpbW91DvpzE0Hib=jJX9mHUXFKDqKf6Qrg9-7=rtT4vuUw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Indeed they do, and that's what motivated this patch. But I'd need
> TB-sized tables to set up something like that. I don't have the
> hardware or time available to do that (vacuum on bloated TB-sized
> tables can take days in my experience). Scale 4000 is as big as I can
> get without running out of space for the tests in my test hardware.
>
> If anybody else has the ability, I'd be thankful if they did test it
> under those conditions, but I cannot. I think Anastasia's test is
> closer to such a test, that's probably why it shows a bigger
> improvement in total elapsed time.
>
> Our production database could possibly be used, but it can take about
> a week to clone it, upgrade it (it's 9.5 currently), and run the
> relevant vacuum.
It looks like I won't be able to do that test with a production
snapshot anytime soon.
Getting approval for the budget required to do that looks like it's
going to take far longer than I thought.
Regardless of that, I think the patch can move forward. I'm still
planning to do the test at some point, but this patch shouldn't block
on it.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Aleksandr Parfenov | 2017-08-18 12:30:38 | [PROPOSAL] Text search configuration extension |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2017-08-18 11:22:29 | Re: Parallel Hash take II |