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
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 |