From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | Jeremy Schneider <schneider(at)ardentperf(dot)com>, Ayush Vatsa <ayushvatsa1810(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Query regarding pg_prewarm extension |
Date: | 2024-12-29 11:15:18 |
Message-ID: | CAApHDvpjrj7N=UagoauxkY7J_cLyzzjA6s0tHHKWsPr+KPdfmA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 29 Dec 2024 at 14:00, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> It feels like we should document what the block range is used for, so
> attached is a doc patch to do that.
- means prewarm through the last block in the relation). The return value
- is the number of blocks prewarmed.
+ means prewarm through the last block in the relation). The block
+ range allows a single relation to be loaded in parallel using multiple
+ concurent function calls. The return value is the number of blocks
+ prewarmed.
hmm, do we really need to highlight one specific usage for the range
like this? I think mentioning this could just confuse readers as it
makes it sound like using a range is going to magically run something
in parallel. I was confused to what you were talking about until I
read what Jeremy had written in his email.
Another equally legitimate use case would be if the user only wanted
to prewarm a subset of the relation... Actually, I'd imagine that's
probably more common than someone trying to speed this up by kicking
off multiple queries each with their own range. I imagine there's less
need to use the range to speed this up now that we have read steams
and likely there will be even less need when AIO is in.
I think the current wording is ok as it is. But if I'm outvoted,
"concurent" needs another 'r'.
David
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2024-12-29 13:58:48 | table_tuple_lock's snapshot argument |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2024-12-29 08:42:11 | Re: Re: proposal: schema variables |