Re: Parallel Seq Scan vs kernel read ahead
От | Thomas Munro |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Parallel Seq Scan vs kernel read ahead |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+hUKGKKhdSNPO1a5xe=HkeUpvsFCsODOib-fDDsi1+aDR+XWQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Parallel Seq Scan vs kernel read ahead (Ranier Vilela <ranier.vf@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Parallel Seq Scan vs kernel read ahead
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 1:38 PM Ranier Vilela <ranier.vf@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 11:15 AM Ranier Vilela <ranier.vf@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > postgres=# set max_parallel_workers_per_gather = 0; >> >> > Time: 227238,445 ms (03:47,238) >> >> > postgres=# set max_parallel_workers_per_gather = 1; >> >> > Time: 138027,351 ms (02:18,027) > Vanila Postgres (latest) > > create table t as select generate_series(1, 800000000)::int i; > set max_parallel_workers_per_gather = 0; > Time: 210524,317 ms (03:30,524) > set max_parallel_workers_per_gather = 1; > Time: 146982,737 ms (02:26,983) Thanks. So it seems like Linux, Windows and anything using ZFS are OK, which probably explains why we hadn't heard complaints about it.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: