From: | "James Pang (chaolpan)" <chaolpan(at)cisco(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: multiple sessions to create index in parallel support |
Date: | 2022-06-22 01:33:40 |
Message-ID: | PH0PR11MB5191C0CBC58B58B8F3D982E5D6B29@PH0PR11MB5191.namprd11.prod.outlook.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
All max_workers_process got increased to 32 before creating index. The 2 session try to create index on totally separate large tables(40gb) , either one in 8 parallel workers, but not both.
James
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2022 11:04 PM
To: James Pang (chaolpan) <chaolpan(at)cisco(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: multiple sessions to create index in parallel support
"James Pang (chaolpan)" <chaolpan(at)cisco(dot)com> writes:
> Max_parallel_workers and max_parallel_maintenance_workers both equal to 32, one session create one index in a large table show parallel 8 workers, the other session creating one index in another separate table always in serial. Even increase max_parallel_worers and max_parallel_maintenance_workers to 64, still show one is parallel 8 workers, the other is done in serial.
Hmm, what about max_worker_processes ? That's an independent limit.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabio Pardi | 2022-06-22 06:15:34 | Re: parallel index creation: maintenance_work_mem not honored? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-06-21 15:03:48 | Re: multiple sessions to create index in parallel support |