| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2020-06-10 05:39:26 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvpn0QQQfXg-T++qC_YC5rmd9bpcDEf2BnJ+K5k9eb1=Lg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 17:21, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I also heard from Andres that he likes this patch with his AIO
> prototype, because of the way request merging works. So it seems like
> there are several reasons to want it.
>
> But ... where should we get the maximum step size from? A GUC?
I guess we'd need to determine if other step sizes were better under
any conditions. I guess one condition would be if there was a LIMIT
clause. I could check if setting it to 1024 makes any difference, but
I'm thinking it won't since I got fairly consistent results on all
worker settings with the patched version.
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2020-06-10 05:42:16 | Re: [PATCH] Add support for choosing huge page size |
| Previous Message | Li Japin | 2020-06-10 05:20:36 | Re: Terminate the idle sessions |