On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 8:02 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2. Vacuum table and index (after 10000 transaction executed)
> 1 worker : 12 sec
> 2 workers : 49 sec
> 3 workers : 54 sec
> 4 workers : 53 sec
> As a result of my test, since multiple process could frequently try to
> acquire the cleanup lock on same index buffer, execution time of
> parallel vacuum got worse.
> And it seems to be effective for only table vacuum so far, but is not
> improved as expected (maybe disk bottleneck).
Not only that, but from your description (I haven't read the patch,
sorry), you'd be scanning the whole index multiple times (one per
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
To make changes to your subscription: