| From: | "Andrey M(dot) Borodin" <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Using read_stream in index vacuum |
| Date: | 2024-10-25 12:01:21 |
| Message-ID: | 73D0FF86-DE06-4A71-A3E8-3830F4C1A60B@yandex-team.ru |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 25 Oct 2024, at 00:55, Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> While writing this email, I realized I evicted buffers for the table
> and not the index. I will perform the test again. However,
> I would like to know your opinion on whether this looks like
> a valid test.
Well, yes, kind of, you need drop caches from index. And, perhaps, you can have more indexes. You also can disable autovaccum and just restart postgres instead of iterating through buffer caches.
I've asked Thomas about performance implications and he told me that converting stuff to streamlined API is not expected to have better performance. It's needed to have decent perfromance when DIRECT_IO will be involved.
Thanks!
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Junwang Zhao | 2024-10-25 12:02:02 | Re: general purpose array_sort |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2024-10-25 11:56:36 | Re: pgsql: Implement pg_wal_replay_wait() stored procedure |