On 8/21/21, 9:29 PM, "Bossart, Nathan" <bossartn@amazon.com> wrote:
> I was curious about this, so I wrote a patch (attached) to store
> multiple files per directory scan and tested it against the latest
> patch in this thread (v9) [0]. Specifically, I set archive_command to
> 'false', created ~20K WAL segments, then restarted the server with
> archive_command set to 'true'. Both the v9 patch and the attached
> patch completed archiving all segments in just under a minute. (I
> tested the attached patch with NUM_FILES_PER_DIRECTORY_SCAN set to 64,
> 128, and 256 and didn't observe any significant difference.) The
> existing logic took over 4 minutes to complete.
>
> I'm hoping to do this test again with many more (100K+) status files,
> as I believe that the v9 patch will be faster at that scale, but I'm
> not sure how much faster it will be.
I ran this again on a bigger machine with 200K WAL files pending
archive. The v9 patch took ~5.5 minutes, the patch I sent took ~8
minutes, and the existing logic took just under 3 hours.
Nathan