On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Claudio Freire <klaussfre...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Indeed they do, and that's what motivated this patch. But I'd need
> TB-sized tables to set up something like that. I don't have the
> hardware or time available to do that (vacuum on bloated TB-sized
> tables can take days in my experience). Scale 4000 is as big as I can
> get without running out of space for the tests in my test hardware.
> If anybody else has the ability, I'd be thankful if they did test it
> under those conditions, but I cannot. I think Anastasia's test is
> closer to such a test, that's probably why it shows a bigger
> improvement in total elapsed time.
> Our production database could possibly be used, but it can take about
> a week to clone it, upgrade it (it's 9.5 currently), and run the
> relevant vacuum.
It looks like I won't be able to do that test with a production
snapshot anytime soon.
Getting approval for the budget required to do that looks like it's
going to take far longer than I thought.
Regardless of that, I think the patch can move forward. I'm still
planning to do the test at some point, but this patch shouldn't block
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: