| From: | Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum |
| Date: | 2019-02-26 04:34:54 |
| Message-ID: | CAJrrPGfpb=-4xE2t1OApnWnu5qL=Rianqz85PE_pX4Lts0QBeg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 9:17 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> Thank you. Attached the rebased patch.
>
I ran some performance tests to compare the parallelism benefits,
but I got some strange results of performance overhead, may be it is
because, I tested it on my laptop.
FYI,
Table schema:
create table tbl(f1 int, f2 char(100), f3 float4, f4 char(100), f5 float8,
f6 char(100), f7 bigint);
Tbl with 3 indexes
1000 record deletion
master - 22ms
patch - 25ms with 0 parallel workers
patch - 43ms with 1 parallel worker
patch - 72ms with 2 parallel workers
10000 record deletion
master - 52ms
patch - 56ms with 0 parallel workers
patch - 79ms with 1 parallel worker
patch - 86ms with 2 parallel workers
100000 record deletion
master - 410ms
patch - 379ms with 0 parallel workers
patch - 330ms with 1 parallel worker
patch - 289ms with 2 parallel workers
Tbl with 5 indexes
1000 record deletion
master - 28ms
patch - 34ms with 0 parallel workers
patch - 86ms with 2 parallel workers
patch - 106ms with 4 parallel workers
10000 record deletion
master - 58ms
patch - 63ms with 0 parallel workers
patch - 101ms with 2 parallel workers
patch - 118ms with 4 parallel workers
100000 record deletion
master - 632ms
patch - 490ms with 0 parallel workers
patch - 455ms with 2 parallel workers
patch - 403ms with 4 parallel workers
Tbl with 7 indexes
1000 record deletion
master - 35ms
patch - 44ms with 0 parallel workers
patch - 93ms with 2 parallel workers
patch - 110ms with 4 parallel workers
patch - 123ms with 6 parallel workers
10000 record deletion
master - 76ms
patch - 78ms with 0 parallel workers
patch - 135ms with 2 parallel workers
patch - 143ms with 4 parallel workers
patch - 139ms with 6 parallel workers
100000 record deletion
master - 641ms
patch - 656ms with 0 parallel workers
patch - 613ms with 2 parallel workers
patch - 735ms with 4 parallel workers
patch - 679ms with 6 parallel workers
Regards,
Haribabu Kommi
Fujitsu Australia
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-02-26 04:37:18 | Re: Segfault when restoring -Fd dump on current HEAD |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2019-02-26 04:31:17 | Re: Making all nbtree entries unique by having heap TIDs participate in comparisons |