| From: | "tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'Bharath Rupireddy' <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, "houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, "tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tanghy(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>, Luc Vlaming <luc(at)swarm64(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | RE: Parallel Inserts in CREATE TABLE AS |
| Date: | 2021-05-28 00:54:48 |
| Message-ID: | TYAPR01MB29905FFCBEBF17AC5D35B03EFE229@TYAPR01MB2990.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
From: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
> I'm still not sure why the execution time with 0 workers (or serial execution or
> no parallelism involved) on my testing system is 112 sec compared to 58 sec on
> Hou-San's system for the same use case. Maybe the testing system I'm using
> is not of the latest configuration compared to others.
What's the setting of wal_level on your two's systems? I thought it could be that you set it to > minimal, while Hou-san set it to minimal. (I forgot the results of 2 and 4 workers, though.)
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2021-05-28 00:59:27 | RE: Parallel Inserts in CREATE TABLE AS |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2021-05-28 00:52:59 | Re: Teaching users how they can get the most out of HOT in Postgres 14 |