Re: Parallel Seq Scan - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: Parallel Seq Scan
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1+ACaW3=J4yYuhYfHqrm0MHWmR6hxQV09vn6thoekx0bw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Parallel Seq Scan  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Parallel Seq Scan
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 7:46 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> All that aside, I still can't account for the numbers you are seeing.
> When I run with your patch and what I think is your test case, I get
> different (slower) numbers.  And even if we've got 6 drives cranking
> along at 400MB/s each, that's still only 2.4 GB/s, not >6 GB/s.  So
> I'm still perplexed.
>

I have tried the tests again and found that I have forgotten to increase
max_worker_processes due to which the data is so different.  Basically
at higher client count it is just scanning lesser number of blocks in
fixed chunk approach.  So today I again tried with changing
max_worker_processes and found that there is not much difference in
performance at higher client count.  I will take some more data for
both block_by_block and fixed_chunk approach and repost the data.


With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: PQgetssl() and alternative SSL implementations
Next
From: Kevin Grittner
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_dump with both --serializable-deferrable and -j