Re: 15 pg_upgrade with -j - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Jeff Ross
Subject Re: 15 pg_upgrade with -j
Date
Msg-id b628e38c-f830-2f63-d87b-bd4749d43a0e@openvistas.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 15 pg_upgrade with -j  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-general


On 5/22/23 5:42 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Jeff Ross <jross@openvistas.net> writes:
On 5/22/23 5:24 PM, Adrian Klaver wrote:
So is the 1400G mostly in one database in the cluster?
Yes, one big database with about 80 schemas and several other smaller 
databases so -j should help, right?
AFAICT from a quick look at the code, you won't get any meaningful
parallelism unless you have several large DBs and/or several large
tablespaces.  It looks like the assumption was that issuing link()
requests in parallel wouldn't help much but just swamp your disk
if they're all on the same filesystem.  Maybe that could use
rethinking, not sure.
			regards, tom lane


Thanks Tom.  These are all smokingly fast SSDs so it would be interesting to see how well they'd hold up under that load.

Jeff

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Andrus
Date:
Subject: Re: How to speed up product code and subcode match
Next
From: Jeff Ross
Date:
Subject: Re: 15 pg_upgrade with -j