On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 4:36 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> Few more comments
>
>
> 1.
> +static int
> +compute_parallel_workers(Relation onerel, int nrequested, int nindexes)
> +{
> + int parallel_workers;
> + bool leaderparticipates = true;
>
> Seems like this function is
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 7:05 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 11:01 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 10:28 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> >>
> Some more comments..
Thank you!
> 1.
> + for (idx = 0; idx < nindexes; idx++)
> + {
> + if (!for_cleanup)
> + lazy
On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 10:00 AM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 8:22 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 7:57 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 2:31 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Do we really need to log all those me
On Sat, Oct 5, 2019 at 8:22 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 7:57 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 2:31 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>> >>
>> >
>> > Do we really need to log all those messages? The other places where we
>> > launch parallel workers doesn't seem t
On Sun, Oct 6, 2019 at 7:59 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 7:34 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 2:02 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I'd also prefer to use maintenance_work_mem at max during parallel
>> >> vacuum regardless of the number of parallel wor
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 7:34 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 2:02 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> >>
> >> I'd also prefer to use maintenance_work_mem at max during parallel
> >> vacuum regardless of the number of parallel workers. This is current
> >> implementation. In lazy vacuum t
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 7:57 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 2:31 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> >>
> >
> > Do we really need to log all those messages? The other places where we
> launch parallel workers doesn't seem to be using such messages. Why do you
> think it is important t
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 3:35 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 11:01 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 10:28 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> >>
> Some more comments..
> 1.
> + for (idx = 0; idx < nindexes; idx++)
> + {
> + if (!for_cleanup)
> + lazy_vacuum_index
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 2:31 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 10:28 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 9:06 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>> >
>> > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 7:29 PM Masahiko Sawada
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > + else
>> > + {
>> > + if (for_cleanup)
>> > + {
>
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 2:02 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 7:29 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 9:31 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>> > *
>> > In function compute_parallel_workers, don't we want to cap the number
>> > of workers based on maintenance_work_mem as
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 4:18 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 7:29 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 9:31 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>> >
One comment:
We can check if parallel_workers is within range something within
MAX_PARALLEL_WORKER_LIMIT.
+ int parallel_worke
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 7:29 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 9:31 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> >
> > *
> > +end_parallel_vacuum(LVParallelState *lps, Relation *Irel, int nindexes)
> > {
> > ..
> > + /* Shutdown worker processes and destroy the parallel context */
> > + WaitForPar
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 11:01 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 10:28 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>
Some more comments..
1.
+ for (idx = 0; idx < nindexes; idx++)
+ {
+ if (!for_cleanup)
+ lazy_vacuum_index(Irel[idx], &stats[idx], vacrelstats->dead_tuples,
+ vacrelstats->old_live_t
On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 10:28 AM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 9:06 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 7:29 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > + else
> > + {
> > + if (for_cleanup)
> > + {
> > + if (lps->nworkers_requested > 0)
> > + appendStringInfo(&buf,
>
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 7:29 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 9:31 PM Amit Kapila
> wrote:
> > *
> > In function compute_parallel_workers, don't we want to cap the number
> > of workers based on maintenance_work_mem as we do in
> > plan_create_index_workers?
> >
> > The basic p
On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 9:06 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 7:29 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> I have started reviewing this patch and I have some cosmetic comments.
> I will continue the review tomorrow.
>
Thank you for reviewing the patch!
> +This change adds PARALLEL optio
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 7:29 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
I have started reviewing this patch and I have some cosmetic comments.
I will continue the review tomorrow.
+This change adds PARALLEL option to VACUUM command that enable us to
+perform index vacuuming and index cleanup with background
+wor
On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 9:31 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 12:03 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > Since the previous version patch conflicts with current HEAD, I've
> > attached the updated version patches.
> >
>
Thank you for reviewing this patch!
> Review comments:
> -
On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 10:31 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 6:01 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 12:03 PM Masahiko Sawada
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Since the previous version patch conflicts with current HEAD, I've
>> > attached the updated version patches.
>> >
On Sat, Sep 21, 2019 at 6:01 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 12:03 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > Since the previous version patch conflicts with current HEAD, I've
> > attached the updated version patches.
> >
>
> Review comments:
> --
>
Sawada-S
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 12:03 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> Since the previous version patch conflicts with current HEAD, I've
> attached the updated version patches.
>
Review comments:
--
*
indexes on the relation which further limited by
+ .
/which further
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation:not tested
Hello
I reviewed v25 patches and have just a few notes.
missed syno
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 2:19 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 7:25 PM Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello.
> >
> > # Is this still living? I changed the status to "needs review"
> >
> > At Sat, 6 Apr 2019 06:47:32 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote in
> >
> > > > Indeed
On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 7:25 PM Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> # Is this still living? I changed the status to "needs review"
>
> At Sat, 6 Apr 2019 06:47:32 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote in
> > > Indeed. How about the following description?
> > >
> >
> > Attached the updated version p
Hello.
# Is this still living? I changed the status to "needs review"
At Sat, 6 Apr 2019 06:47:32 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
wrote in
> > Indeed. How about the following description?
> >
>
> Attached the updated version patches.
Thanks.
heapam.h is including access/parallel.h but the file doesn
On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 4:10 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 3:47 PM Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you for the rebased version.
> >
> > At Fri, 5 Apr 2019 13:59:36 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote in
> >
> > > Thank you for the notice. Rebased.
> >
> > +inte
On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 3:47 PM Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
>
> Thank you for the rebased version.
>
> At Fri, 5 Apr 2019 13:59:36 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote in
> > Thank you for the notice. Rebased.
>
> +integer
> +
> +
> + Specifies parallel degree for PARALLEL option. The
>
Thank you for the rebased version.
At Fri, 5 Apr 2019 13:59:36 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
wrote in
> Thank you for the notice. Rebased.
+integer
+
+
+ Specifies parallel degree for PARALLEL option. The
+ value must be at least 1. If the parallel degree
+ integer is omit
On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 4:51 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 6:28 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > These patches conflict with the current HEAD. Attached the updated patches.
>
> They'll need another rebase.
>
Thank you for the notice. Rebased.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON
On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 6:28 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> These patches conflict with the current HEAD. Attached the updated patches.
They'll need another rebase.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 11:26 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 4:53 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 10:31 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > > Thank you for reviewing the patch.
> >
> > I don't think the approach in v20-0001 is quite right.
> >
> >
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 9:28 PM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 10:27 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> > You're right, the previous patches are wrong. Attached the updated
> > version patches.
>
> 0001 looks good now. Committed.
>
Thank you!
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TEL
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 10:27 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> You're right, the previous patches are wrong. Attached the updated
> version patches.
0001 looks good now. Committed.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 4:53 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 10:31 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> > Thank you for reviewing the patch.
>
> I don't think the approach in v20-0001 is quite right.
>
> if (strcmp(opt->defname, "verbose") == 0)
> -params.options
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 10:31 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Thank you for reviewing the patch.
I don't think the approach in v20-0001 is quite right.
if (strcmp(opt->defname, "verbose") == 0)
-params.options |= VACOPT_VERBOSE;
+params.options |= defGetBoolean(opt)
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 1:31 AM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 10:19 AM Haribabu Kommi
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > + for (i = 0; i < nindexes; i++)
> > + {
> > + LVIndStats *s = &(copied_indstats[i]);
> > +
> > + if (s->updated)
> > + lazy_update_index_statistics(Irel[i], &(s->stats))
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 10:19 AM Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 4:06 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>
>>
>> Attached the updated version patch. 0001 patch allows all existing
>> vacuum options an boolean argument. 0002 patch introduces parallel
>> lazy vacuum. 0003 patch adds -P
Hello. I forgot to mention a point.
At Fri, 22 Mar 2019 14:02:36 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
wrote in
> Attached the updated version patch. 0001 patch allows all existing
> vacuum options an boolean argument. 0002 patch introduces parallel
> lazy vacuum. 0003 patch adds -P (--parallel) option to vac
Hello.
At Thu, 21 Mar 2019 15:51:40 -0400, Robert Haas wrote
in
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 3:59 AM Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote:
> > The leader doesn't continue heap-scan while index vacuuming is
> > running. And the index-page-scan seems eat up CPU easily. If
> > index vacuum can run simultaneous
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 4:06 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> Attached the updated version patch. 0001 patch allows all existing
> vacuum options an boolean argument. 0002 patch introduces parallel
> lazy vacuum. 0003 patch adds -P (--parallel) option to vacuumdb
> command.
>
Thanks for sharing the
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 4:53 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 7:26 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > In parsing vacuum command, since only PARALLEL option can have an
> > argument I've added the check in ExecVacuum to erroring out when other
> > options have an argument. But it might
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 7:26 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> In parsing vacuum command, since only PARALLEL option can have an
> argument I've added the check in ExecVacuum to erroring out when other
> options have an argument. But it might be good to make other vacuum
> options (perhaps except for DI
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 3:59 AM Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
> The leader doesn't continue heap-scan while index vacuuming is
> running. And the index-page-scan seems eat up CPU easily. If
> index vacuum can run simultaneously with the next heap scan
> phase, we can make index scan finishes almost the
Hello
> * in_parallel is true if we're performing parallel lazy vacuum. Since any
> * updates are not allowed during parallel mode we don't update statistics
> * but set the index bulk-deletion result to *stats. Otherwise we update it
> * and set NULL.
lazy_cleanup_index has in_parallel argument
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 7:29 PM Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
>
> At Tue, 19 Mar 2019 17:51:32 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote in
> > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:39 AM Haribabu Kommi
> > wrote:
> > > The performance results are good. Do we want to add the recommended
> > > size in the document for th
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 7:15 PM Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
>
> At Tue, 19 Mar 2019 19:01:06 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote in
> > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 4:59 PM Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > At Tue, 19 Mar 2019 13:31:04 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote in
> > >
> > > > > For in
At Tue, 19 Mar 2019 17:51:32 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
wrote in
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:39 AM Haribabu Kommi
> wrote:
> > The performance results are good. Do we want to add the recommended
> > size in the document for the parallel option? the parallel option for
> > smaller
> > tables can l
At Tue, 19 Mar 2019 19:01:06 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
wrote in
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 4:59 PM Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
> wrote:
> >
> > At Tue, 19 Mar 2019 13:31:04 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote in
> >
> > > > For indexes=4,8,16, the cases with parallel_degree=4,8,16 behave
> > > > almost the
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 4:59 PM Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
>
> At Tue, 19 Mar 2019 13:31:04 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote in
> > > For indexes=4,8,16, the cases with parallel_degree=4,8,16 behave
> > > almost the same. I suspect that the indexes are too-small and all
> > > the index pages were o
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:39 AM Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 1:58 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 7:20 PM Masahiko Sawada
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 1:35 PM Haribabu Kommi
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 9:17 P
At Tue, 19 Mar 2019 13:31:04 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
wrote in
> > For indexes=4,8,16, the cases with parallel_degree=4,8,16 behave
> > almost the same. I suspect that the indexes are too-small and all
> > the index pages were on memory and CPU is saturated. Maybe you
> > had four cores and parall
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 7:06 PM Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> At Mon, 18 Mar 2019 11:54:42 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote in
> > Here is the performance test results. I've setup a 500MB table with
> > several indexes and made 10% of table dirty before each vacuum.
> > Compared executi
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 1:58 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 7:20 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 1:35 PM Haribabu Kommi
> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 9:17 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Thank you. Attached the rebased p
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 3:05 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 3:37 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > BTW your patch seems to not apply to the current HEAD cleanly and to
> > need to update the comment of vacuum().
>
> Yeah, I omitted some hunks by being stupid with 'git'.
>
> Since y
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 3:37 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Attached the updated patch you proposed and the patch that converts
> the grammer productions for the VACUUM option on top of the former
> patch. The latter patch moves VacuumOption to vacuum.h since the
> parser no longer needs such informa
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 3:37 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> BTW your patch seems to not apply to the current HEAD cleanly and to
> need to update the comment of vacuum().
Yeah, I omitted some hunks by being stupid with 'git'.
Since you seem to like the approach, I put back the hunks I intended
to h
Hello.
At Mon, 18 Mar 2019 11:54:42 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
wrote in
> Here is the performance test results. I've setup a 500MB table with
> several indexes and made 10% of table dirty before each vacuum.
> Compared execution time of the patched postgrse with the current HEAD
> (at 'speed_up' co
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 7:20 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 1:35 PM Haribabu Kommi
> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 9:17 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Thank you. Attached the rebased patch.
> >
> >
> > I ran some performance tests to compare the paralle
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 6:41 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 1:56 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > I don't have a strong opinion but the using a Node would be more
> > suitable in the future when we add more options to vacuum. And it
> > seems to me that it's unlikely to change a N
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 1:56 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> I don't have a strong opinion but the using a Node would be more
> suitable in the future when we add more options to vacuum. And it
> seems to me that it's unlikely to change a Node to a plain struct. So
> there is an idea of doing it now a
On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 12:22 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 10:58 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > > Why make it a Node? I mean I think a struct makes sense, but what's
> > > the point of giving it a NodeTag?
> >
> > Well, the main point is consistency with other nodes and keep th
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 10:58 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > Why make it a Node? I mean I think a struct makes sense, but what's
> > the point of giving it a NodeTag?
>
> Well, the main point is consistency with other nodes and keep the code clean.
It looks to me like if we made it a plain struct
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 2:54 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 1:26 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > Okay, attached the latest version of patch set. I've incorporated all
> > comments I got and separated the patch for making vacuum options a
> > Node (0001 patch). And the patch doesn't
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 1:26 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Okay, attached the latest version of patch set. I've incorporated all
> comments I got and separated the patch for making vacuum options a
> Node (0001 patch). And the patch doesn't use parallel_workers. It
> might be proposed in the another
On Mon, Mar 4, 2019 at 10:27 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 3:54 AM Robert Haas wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 12:19 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > > > I wonder if we really want this behavior. Should a setting that
> > > > controls the degree of parallelism whe
On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 3:54 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 12:19 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > > I wonder if we really want this behavior. Should a setting that
> > > controls the degree of parallelism when scanning the table also affect
> > > VACUUM? I tend to think that we p
On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 12:19 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > I wonder if we really want this behavior. Should a setting that
> > controls the degree of parallelism when scanning the table also affect
> > VACUUM? I tend to think that we probably don't ever want VACUUM of a
> > table to be parallel
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 2:44 AM Robert Haas wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 5:17 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > Thank you. Attached the rebased patch.
>
> Here are some review comments.
Thank you for reviewing the patches!
>
> + started by a single utility command. Currently, the par
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 5:17 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Thank you. Attached the rebased patch.
Here are some review comments.
+ started by a single utility command. Currently, the parallel
+ utility commands that support the use of parallel workers are
+ CREATE INDEX an
On Sat, Feb 23, 2019 at 10:28 PM Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 9:17 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 9:32 PM Haribabu Kommi
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 11:47 PM Masahiko Sawada
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 12:1
On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 1:35 PM Haribabu Kommi wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 9:17 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>
>> Thank you. Attached the rebased patch.
>
>
> I ran some performance tests to compare the parallelism benefits,
Thank you for testing!
> but I got some strange results of perfor
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 9:17 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
> Thank you. Attached the rebased patch.
>
I ran some performance tests to compare the parallelism benefits,
but I got some strange results of performance overhead, may be it is
because, I tested it on my laptop.
FYI,
Table schema:
create
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 9:17 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 9:32 PM Haribabu Kommi
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 11:47 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 12:14 PM Haribabu Kommi <
> kommi.harib...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 9:32 PM Haribabu Kommi wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 11:47 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 12:14 PM Haribabu Kommi
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 8:19 AM Masahiko Sawada
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The passing stats = NUL
On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 11:47 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 12:14 PM Haribabu Kommi
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 8:19 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> The passing stats = NULL to amvacuumcleanup and ambulkdelete means the
> >> first time execution. F
On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 12:14 PM Haribabu Kommi wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 8:19 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>
>>
>> The passing stats = NULL to amvacuumcleanup and ambulkdelete means the
>> first time execution. For example, btvacuumcleanup skips cleanup if
>> it's not NULL.In the normal v
On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 8:19 AM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 2:06 AM Haribabu Kommi
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > + * Before starting parallel index vacuum and parallel cleanup index we
> launch
> > + * parallel workers. All parallel workers will exit after processed all
> inde
On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 10:18 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> Thank you. I'll submit the updated patch set.
>
Attached the latest patch set.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
From 021a179d7696183394db60aedbd1acb0301ad4b0 Mon Sep
On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 4:06 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 2:49 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 2:06 AM Haribabu Kommi
> > wrote:
> >
> > Thank you. I'll submit the updated patch set.
> >
>
> I don't see any chance of getting this committed in the nex
On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 2:49 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 2:06 AM Haribabu Kommi
> wrote:
>
> Thank you. I'll submit the updated patch set.
>
I don't see any chance of getting this committed in the next few days,
so, moved to next CF. Thanks for working on this and I h
On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 2:06 AM Haribabu Kommi wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 1:16 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>
>>
>> Attached the latest patches.
>
>
> Thanks for the updated patches.
> Some more code review comments.
>
Thank you!
> + started by a single utility command. Current
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 1:16 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> Attached the latest patches.
>
Thanks for the updated patches.
Some more code review comments.
+ started by a single utility command. Currently, the parallel
+ utility commands that support the use of parallel workers a
On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 9:59 PM Haribabu Kommi wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for the latest patch. I have some more minor comments.
Thank you for reviewing the patch.
>
> + Execute index vacuum and cleanup index in parallel with
>
> Better to use vacuum index and cleanup index? This is in same with
>
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 11:42 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 10:38 AM Haribabu Kommi
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 6:00 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Rebased.
> >
> >
> > I started reviewing the patch, I didn't finish my review yet.
> > Following
On Fri, Jan 18, 2019 at 10:38 AM Haribabu Kommi
wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 6:00 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>
>>
>> Rebased.
>
>
> I started reviewing the patch, I didn't finish my review yet.
> Following are some of the comments.
Thank you for reviewing the patch.
>
> +PARALLEL c
On Tue, Jan 15, 2019 at 6:00 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> Rebased.
>
I started reviewing the patch, I didn't finish my review yet.
Following are some of the comments.
+PARALLEL N
+
+
+ Execute index vacuum and cleanup index in parallel with
I doubt that user can understand t
On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 11:43 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 3:38 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 1:29 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Attached the updated patches. I scaled back the scope of this patch.
> > > The patch now includes only fe
On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 3:38 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 1:29 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > Attached the updated patches. I scaled back the scope of this patch.
> > The patch now includes only feature (a), that is it execute both index
> > vacuum and cleanup index in par
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 1:29 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> Attached the updated patches. I scaled back the scope of this patch.
> The patch now includes only feature (a), that is it execute both index
> vacuum and cleanup index in parallel. It also doesn't include
> autovacuum support for now.
>
>
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 11:26 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 2:08 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 2:35 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 5:47 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 2:04 PM Masahiko Sawada
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 2:08 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 2:35 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 5:47 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 2:04 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > >
>
> Thank you for the comment.
>
> > > I cou
On Sun, Nov 25, 2018 at 2:35 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 5:47 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 2:04 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> >
Thank you for the comment.
> > I could see that you have put a lot of effort on this patch and still
> > we are no
On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 5:47 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 2:04 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
>
> I could see that you have put a lot of effort on this patch and still
> we are not able to make much progress mainly I guess because of
> relation extension lock problem. I think w
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 2:04 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> Attached rebased version patch to the current HEAD.
>
> > Please apply this patch with the extension lock patch[1] when testing
> > as this patch can try to extend visibility map pages concurrently.
> >
>
> Because the patch leads performa
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 2:28 PM Yura Sokolov wrote:
>
> Excuse me for being noisy.
>
> Increasing vacuum's ring buffer improves vacuum upto 6 times.
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20170720190405.GM1769%40tamriel.snowman.net
> This is one-line change.
>
> How much improvement para
Excuse me for being noisy.
Increasing vacuum's ring buffer improves vacuum upto 6 times.
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20170720190405.GM1769%40tamriel.snowman.net
This is one-line change.
How much improvement parallel vacuum gives?
31.10.2018 3:23, Masahiko Sawada пишет:
> On Tue, O
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 9:31 AM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Michael Paquier
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 5:54 AM, Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> >> Yeah, I was thinking the commit is relevant with this issue but as
> >> Amit mentioned this error is emitted
On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 5:54 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Yeah, I was thinking the commit is relevant with this issue but as
> Amit mentioned this error is emitted by DROP SCHEMA CASCASE.
> I don't find out the cause of this issue yet. With the previous
> version patch, autovacuum workers were wok
301 - 398 of 398 matches
Mail list logo
