Re: TODO : Allow parallel cores to be used by vacuumdb [ WIP ] - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dilip kumar
Subject Re: TODO : Allow parallel cores to be used by vacuumdb [ WIP ]
Date
Msg-id 4205E661176A124FAF891E0A6BA913526639928F@szxeml509-mbs.china.huawei.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: TODO : Allow parallel cores to be used by vacuumdb [ WIP ]  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: TODO : Allow parallel cores to be used by vacuumdb [ WIP ]
List pgsql-hackers
<div class="WordSection1"><p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">On</span><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">29December 2014 10:22 Amit Kapila Wrote,</span><p
class="MsoNormal"><spanstyle="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><p
class="MsoNormal">>>Case1:In Case for CompleteDB:<br /> >><br /> >> In base code first it will
processall the tables in stage 1 then in stage2 and so on, so that at some time all the tables are analyzed at least up
tocertain stage.<br /> >><br /> >> But If we process all the stages for one table first, and then take the
othertable for processing the stage 1, then it may happen that for some table all the stages are processed,<br />
>><br/> >> but others are waiting for even first stage to be processed, this will affect the functionality
foranalyze-in-stages.<br /> >><br /> >> Case2: In case for independent tables like –t “t1” –t “t2”<br />
>><br/> > In base code also currently we are processing all the stages for first table and processing same for
nexttable and so on.<br /> >><br /> >> I think, if user is giving multiple tables together then his purpose
mightbe to analyze those tables together stage by stage,<br /> >> but in our code we analyze table1 in all stages
andthen only considering the next table.<br /> >><br /> >So basically you want to say that currently the
processingfor<p class="MsoNormal">>tables with --analyze-in-stages switch is different when the user<p
class="MsoNormal">>executesvacuumdb for whole database versus when it does for<p class="MsoNormal">>individual
tables(multiple tables together).  In the proposed patch<p class="MsoNormal">>the processing for tables will be same
foreither cases (whole<p class="MsoNormal">>database or independent tables).  I think your point has merit, so<p
class="MsoNormal">>letsproceed with this as it is in your patch.<p class="MsoNormal"> <p class="MsoNormal">>Do
youhave anything more to handle in patch or shall I take one<p class="MsoNormal">>another look and pass it to
committerif it is ready for the same.<p class="MsoNormal"> <p class="MsoNormal">I think nothing more to be handled from
myside, you can go ahead with review..<p class="MsoNormal"> <p class="MsoNormal">Regards,<p class="MsoNormal">Dilip<p
class="MsoNormal"><spanstyle="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span><p
class="MsoNormal"><spanstyle="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"> </span></div> 

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: TODO : Allow parallel cores to be used by vacuumdb [ WIP ]
Next
From: Jeff Davis
Date:
Subject: Re: PATCH: decreasing memory needlessly consumed by array_agg