| From: | Mahendra Singh Thalor <mahi6run(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Langote <langote_amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sergei Kornilov <sk(at)zsrv(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum |
| Date: | 2020-01-17 11:05:19 |
| Message-ID: | CAKYtNAr+YO=R0PEp3_mZWUCKunAx8rN+C5Z9_XaUU0VaB_1AoQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 at 14:47, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:51 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 11:39 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> > I have performed cost delay testing on the latest test(I have used
> > same script as attahced in [1] and [2].
> > vacuum_cost_delay = 10
> > vacuum_cost_limit = 2000
> >
> > Observation: As we have concluded earlier, the delay time is in sync
> > with the I/O performed by the worker
> > and the total delay (heap + index) is almost the same as the
> > non-parallel operation.
> >
>
> Thanks for doing this test again. In the attached patch, I have
> addressed all the comments and modified a few comments.
>
Hi,
Below are some review comments for v50 patch.
1.
+LVShared
+LVSharedIndStats
+LVParallelState
LWLock
I think, LVParallelState should come before LVSharedIndStats.
2.
+ /*
+ * It is possible that parallel context is initialized with fewer
workers
+ * then the number of indexes that need a separate worker in the
current
+ * phase, so we need to consider it. See
compute_parallel_vacuum_workers.
+ */
This comment is confusing me. I think, "then" should be replaced with
"than".
--
Thanks and Regards
Mahendra Singh Thalor
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Asim R P | 2020-01-17 13:00:58 | Re: Unnecessary delay in streaming replication due to replay lag |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2020-01-17 10:36:51 | Re: PATCH: standby crashed when replay block which truncated in standby but failed to truncate in master node |