On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 4:55 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> wrote: > I'm happy with the amount of testing I've done now, and the results. Does > anyone want to throw out any more test cases where there might be a > regression? If not, let's get these reviewed and committed.
I'll try to look at this properly tomorrow. Currently still working away at creating a new revision of my sorting patchset. Obviously this is interesting, but it raises certain questions for the parallel CREATE INDEX patch in particular that I'd like to get straight, aside from everything else. I've been using an AWS d2.4xlarge instance for testing all my recent sort patches, with 16 vCPUs, 122 GiB RAM, 12 x 2 TB disks. It worked well to emphasize I/O throughput and parallelism over latency. I'd like to investigate how this pre-reading stuff does there. I recall that for one very large case, it took a full minute to do just the first round of preloading during the leader's final merge (this was with something like 50GB of maintenance_work_mem). So, it will be interesting. BTW, noticed a typo here: > + * track memory usage of indivitual tuples. -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers