RE: Parallel Inserts in CREATE TABLE AS
От | houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com |
---|---|
Тема | RE: Parallel Inserts in CREATE TABLE AS |
Дата | |
Msg-id | OS0PR01MB5716E05057BEAE757E8FBDF694239@OS0PR01MB5716.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Parallel Inserts in CREATE TABLE AS (Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
From: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2021 3:41 PM > > On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 1:03 PM tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com > <tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > > From: houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com <houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com> > > > Although, the 4 workers case still has performance degradation > > > compared to serial case. > > > > > > SERIAL: 58759.213 ms > > > PARALLEL 2 WORKER [NOT SKIP FSM]: 68390.221 ms [SKIP FSM]: > > > 58633.924 ms > > > PARALLEL 4 WORKER [NOT SKIP FSM]: 67448.142 ms [SKIP FSM]: > > > 66,960.305 ms > > > > Can you see any difference in table sizes? > > Also, the number of pages the table occupies in each case along with table size > would give more insights. > > I do as follows to get the number of pages a relation occupies: > CREATE EXTENSION pgstattuple; > SELECT pg_relpages('test'); It seems the difference between SKIP FSM and NOT SKIP FSM is not big. I tried serval times and the average result is almost the same. pg_relpages ------------- 1428575 pg_relation_size ------------- 11702976512(11G) Best regards, houzj
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: