Re: Parallel Seq Scan vs kernel read ahead - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Munro
Subject Re: Parallel Seq Scan vs kernel read ahead
Date
Msg-id CA+hUKG+qe-kVP2ticZ_CZF+JH38Bh3oKZV_MZ4u4yBJTPFMJdQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Parallel Seq Scan vs kernel read ahead  (Ranier Vilela <ranier.vf@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Parallel Seq Scan vs kernel read ahead
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:03 PM Ranier Vilela <ranier.vf@gmail.com> wrote:
> Time: 47767,916 ms (00:47,768)
> Time: 32645,448 ms (00:32,645)

Just to make sure kernel caching isn't helping here, maybe try making
the table 2x or 4x bigger?  My test was on a virtual machine with only
4GB RAM, so the table couldn't be entirely cached.

> How display " -> execution time 5.2s, average read size ="?

Execution time is what you showed, and average read size should be
inside the Windows performance window somewhere (not sure what it's
called).



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Operator class parameters and sgml docs
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: factorial function/phase out postfix operators?