Re: 15 pg_upgrade with -j

From: Jeff Ross <jross(at)openvistas(dot)net>
To: pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 15 pg_upgrade with -j
Date: 2023-05-23 14:38:53
Message-ID: b628e38c-f830-2f63-d87b-bd4749d43a0e@openvistas.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On 5/22/23 5:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Ross<jross(at)openvistas(dot)net> writes:
>> On 5/22/23 5:24 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
>>> So is the 1400G mostly in one database in the cluster?
>> Yes, one big database with about 80 schemas and several other smaller
>> databases so -j should help, right?
> AFAICT from a quick look at the code, you won't get any meaningful
> parallelism unless you have several large DBs and/or several large
> tablespaces. It looks like the assumption was that issuing link()
> requests in parallel wouldn't help much but just swamp your disk
> if they're all on the same filesystem. Maybe that could use
> rethinking, not sure.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>
Thanks Tom.  These are all smokingly fast SSDs so it would be
interesting to see how well they'd hold up under that load.

Jeff

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Ross 2023-05-23 14:43:54 Re: 15 pg_upgrade with -j
Previous Message Andrus 2023-05-23 14:26:12 Re: How to speed up product code and subcode match