Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1K8KHK7jLwzfx+dvHZmDy1+pnZzVuNWWnetNuuCKnzn2g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum (Mahendra Singh Thalor <mahi6run@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 10:11 AM Mahendra Singh Thalor <mahi6run@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 08:22, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 2. > > > I checked time taken by vacuum.sql test. Execution time is almost same > > > with and without v45 patch. > > > > > > Without v45 patch: > > > Run1) vacuum ... ok 701 ms > > > Run2) vacuum ... ok 549 ms > > > Run3) vacuum ... ok 559 ms > > > Run4) vacuum ... ok 480 ms > > > > > > With v45 patch: > > > Run1) vacuum ... ok 842 ms > > > Run2) vacuum ... ok 808 ms > > > Run3) vacuum ... ok 774 ms > > > Run4) vacuum ... ok 792 ms > > > > > > > I see some variance in results, have you run with autovacuum as off. > > I was expecting that this might speed up some cases where parallel > > vacuum is used by default. > > I think, this is expected difference in timing because we are adding > some vacuum related test. I am not starting server manually(means I am > starting server with only default setting). > Can you once test by setting autovacuum = off? The autovacuum leads to variability in test timing. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: