Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum WIP - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum WIP
Date
Msg-id CANP8+jKWOw6AAorFOjdynxUKqs6XRReOcNy-VXRFFU_4bBT8ww@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum WIP  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum WIP  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 9 January 2017 at 08:48, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:

> I had not considered necessity of dead lock detection support.

It seems like a big potential win to scan multiple indexes in parallel.

What do we actually gain from having the other parts of VACUUM execute
in parallel? Does truncation happen faster in parallel? ISTM we might
reduce the complexity of this if there is no substantial gain.

Can you give us some timings for performance of the different phases,
with varying levels of parallelism?

Does the design for collecting dead TIDs use a variable amount of
memory? Does this work negate the other work to allow VACUUM to use >
1GB memory?

-- 
Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] merging some features from plpgsql2 project
Next
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] merging some features from plpgsql2 project