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

From David Rowley
Subject Re: Parallel Seq Scan vs kernel read ahead
Date
Msg-id CAApHDvpn0QQQfXg-T++qC_YC5rmd9bpcDEf2BnJ+K5k9eb1=Lg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Parallel Seq Scan vs kernel read ahead  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Parallel Seq Scan vs kernel read ahead
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 17:21, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> I also heard from Andres that he likes this patch with his AIO
> prototype, because of the way request merging works.  So it seems like
> there are several reasons to want it.
>
> But ... where should we get the maximum step size from?  A GUC?

I guess we'd need to determine if other step sizes were better under
any conditions.  I guess one condition would be if there was a LIMIT
clause. I could check if setting it to 1024 makes any difference, but
I'm thinking it won't since I got fairly consistent results on all
worker settings with the patched version.

David



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Li Japin
Date:
Subject: Re: Terminate the idle sessions
Next
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add support for choosing huge page size