Re: parallel pg_restore - WIP patch
От | Philip Warner |
---|---|
Тема | Re: parallel pg_restore - WIP patch |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 48E1A752.2060807@rhyme.com.au обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: parallel pg_restore - WIP patch (Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: parallel pg_restore - WIP patch
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan wrote: > Unfortunately, it quite possibly would. You would not be able to build > two indexes on the same table in parallel, even though they wouldn't > have conflicting locks. I suppose so, but: 1. By the same logic it might speed things up; it might build two completely separate indexes and thereby avoid (some kind of) contention. In any case, it would most likely do *something* else. It should only reduce performance if (a) it can do nothing or (b) there is a benefit in building multiple indexes on the same table at the same time. 2. Perhaps if there are a limited number of items that share dependencies but which are known to be OK (ie. indexes), maybe list them in the inner loop as exceptions and allow them to run parallel. This would mean a failure to list a new TOC item type would result in worse performance rather than a crash.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: