On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 8:02 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > As for PoC, I implemented parallel vacuum so that each worker > processes both 1 and 2 phases for particular block range. > Suppose we vacuum 1000 blocks table with 4 workers, each worker > processes 250 consecutive blocks in phase 1 and then reclaims dead > tuples from heap and indexes (phase 2).
So each worker is assigned a range of blocks, and processes them in parallel? This does not sound performance-wise. I recall Robert and Amit emails on the matter for sequential scan that this would suck performance out particularly for rotating disks. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
