On Fri, 17 Jan 2020 at 14:47, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:51 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 11:39 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I have performed cost delay testing on the latest test(I have used > > same script as attahced in [1] and [2]. > > vacuum_cost_delay = 10 > > vacuum_cost_limit = 2000 > > > > Observation: As we have concluded earlier, the delay time is in sync > > with the I/O performed by the worker > > and the total delay (heap + index) is almost the same as the > > non-parallel operation. > > > > Thanks for doing this test again. In the attached patch, I have > addressed all the comments and modified a few comments. >
Hi, Below are some review comments for v50 patch. 1. +LVShared +LVSharedIndStats +LVParallelState LWLock I think, LVParallelState should come before LVSharedIndStats. 2. + /* + * It is possible that parallel context is initialized with fewer workers + * then the number of indexes that need a separate worker in the current + * phase, so we need to consider it. See compute_parallel_vacuum_workers. + */ This comment is confusing me. I think, "then" should be replaced with "than". -- Thanks and Regards Mahendra Singh Thalor EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
