On Fri, 15 Nov 2019 at 11:54, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 10:02 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > I've done some tests while changing shared buffer size, delays and
> > number of workers. The overall results has the similar tendency as the
> > result shared by Dilip and
On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 5:02 PM Mahendra Singh wrote:
>
> On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 at 17:56, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 5:14 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 4:23 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ..
> > > > > I have tested the same with
On Wed, Nov 13, 2019 at 10:02 AM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> I've done some tests while changing shared buffer size, delays and
> number of workers. The overall results has the similar tendency as the
> result shared by Dilip and looks reasonable to me.
>
Thanks, Sawada-san for repeating the
On Mon, 11 Nov 2019 at 17:56, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 5:14 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 4:23 PM Amit Kapila
wrote:
> > >
> > > ..
> > > > I have tested the same with some other workload(test file attached).
> > > > I can see the same behaviour
On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 20:22, Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 19:08, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 3:03 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 10:47 AM Dilip Kumar
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 4:23 PM Amit
On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 19:08, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 3:03 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 10:47 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 4:23 PM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 12:59 PM Dilip Kumar
On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 3:03 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 10:47 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 4:23 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 12:59 PM Dilip Kumar
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 9:43 AM Dilip
On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 10:47 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 4:23 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 12:59 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 9:43 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 11:49 AM Amit Kapila
>
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 4:23 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 12:59 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 9:43 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 11:49 AM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, I think it is difficult to
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 5:14 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 4:23 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > ..
> > > I have tested the same with some other workload(test file attached).
> > > I can see the same behaviour with this workload as well that with the
> > > patch 4 the
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 4:23 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 12:59 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 9:43 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 11:49 AM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, I think it is difficult to
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 12:59 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 9:43 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 11:49 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Yeah, I think it is difficult to get the exact balance, but we can try
> > > to be as close as possible. We
On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 9:43 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 11:49 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 9:39 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > I have done some experiments on this line. I have first produced a
> > > case where we can show the problem with the
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 11:49 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 9:39 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > I have done some experiments on this line. I have first produced a
> > case where we can show the problem with the existing shared costing
> > patch (worker which is doing less I/O
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 9:39 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> I have done some experiments on this line. I have first produced a
> case where we can show the problem with the existing shared costing
> patch (worker which is doing less I/O might pay the penalty on behalf
> of the worker who is doing more
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 8:37 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 8:18 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 at 15:45, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 11:28 AM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 11:42 PM Andres
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 8:18 AM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 at 15:45, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 11:28 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 11:42 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > The two approaches to solve this
On Wed, 6 Nov 2019 at 15:45, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 11:28 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 11:42 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > The two approaches to solve this problem being discussed in that
> > > > thread [1] are as follows:
> > > > (a)
On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 9:21 AM Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> * Amit Kapila (amit.kapil...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 1:42 AM Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> > > > That's quite doable independent of parallelism, as we don't have
On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 11:28 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 11:42 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> >
> > > The two approaches to solve this problem being discussed in that
> > > thread [1] are as follows:
> > > (a) Allow the parallel workers and master backend to have a shared
> >
Greetings,
* Amit Kapila (amit.kapil...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 1:42 AM Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> > > That's quite doable independent of parallelism, as we don't have tables
> > > or indexes spanning more than one tablespace. True,
On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 7:55 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2019-11-06 07:53:09 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > As per feedback in this thread, it seems that for now, it is better,
> > if we can allow a parallel vacuum only when I/O throttling is not
> > enabled. We can later extend it
Hi,
On 2019-11-06 07:53:09 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> As per feedback in this thread, it seems that for now, it is better,
> if we can allow a parallel vacuum only when I/O throttling is not
> enabled. We can later extend it based on feedback from the field once
> the feature starts getting
On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 1:42 AM Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
>
> > That's quite doable independent of parallelism, as we don't have tables
> > or indexes spanning more than one tablespace. True, you could then make
> > the processing of an individual vacuum
On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 8:49 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On November 5, 2019 7:16:41 AM PST, Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 2:40 PM Amit Kapila
> >wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 11:58 PM Andres Freund
> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > On 2019-11-04
Hi,
On November 5, 2019 7:16:41 AM PST, Dilip Kumar wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 2:40 PM Amit Kapila
>wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 11:58 PM Andres Freund
>wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On 2019-11-04 12:59:02 -0500, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 1:54 AM Amit Kapila
On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 2:40 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 11:58 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 2019-11-04 12:59:02 -0500, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 1:54 AM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > For parallel vacuum [1], we were discussing
On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 1:12 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2019-11-04 14:33:41 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> > I've been wondering if the accounting system should consider the cost
> > per tablespace when there's multiple tablespaces involved, instead of
> > throttling the overall process without
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 11:58 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2019-11-04 12:59:02 -0500, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 1:54 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > > For parallel vacuum [1], we were discussing what is the best way to
> > > divide the cost among parallel workers but we
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 11:42 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
>
> > The two approaches to solve this problem being discussed in that
> > thread [1] are as follows:
> > (a) Allow the parallel workers and master backend to have a shared
> > view of vacuum cost related parameters (mainly VacuumCostBalance)
Greetings,
* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> On 2019-11-04 14:33:41 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> > > On 2019-11-04 14:06:19 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > > With parallelization across indexes, you could have a situation where
> > >
Hi,
On 2019-11-04 14:33:41 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> > On 2019-11-04 14:06:19 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > With parallelization across indexes, you could have a situation where
> > > the individual indexes are on different tablespaces with
Greetings,
* Andres Freund (and...@anarazel.de) wrote:
> On 2019-11-04 14:06:19 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Jeff Janes (jeff.ja...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 1:54 AM Amit Kapila
> > > wrote:
> > > > For parallel vacuum [1], we were discussing what is the best way to
>
Hi,
On 2019-11-04 14:06:19 -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Jeff Janes (jeff.ja...@gmail.com) wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 1:54 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > For parallel vacuum [1], we were discussing what is the best way to
> > > divide the cost among parallel workers but we didn't get many
Greetings,
* Jeff Janes (jeff.ja...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 1:54 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > For parallel vacuum [1], we were discussing what is the best way to
> > divide the cost among parallel workers but we didn't get many inputs
> > apart from people who are very actively
Hi,
On 2019-11-04 12:59:02 -0500, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 1:54 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> > For parallel vacuum [1], we were discussing what is the best way to
> > divide the cost among parallel workers but we didn't get many inputs
> > apart from people who are very actively
Hi,
On 2019-11-04 12:24:35 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> For parallel vacuum [1], we were discussing what is the best way to
> divide the cost among parallel workers but we didn't get many inputs
> apart from people who are very actively involved in patch development.
> I feel that we need some
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 1:54 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> For parallel vacuum [1], we were discussing what is the best way to
> divide the cost among parallel workers but we didn't get many inputs
> apart from people who are very actively involved in patch development.
> I feel that we need some more
On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 at 19:26, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 1:51 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 3:54 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > I think approach-2 is better in throttling the system as it doesn't
> > > have the drawback of the first approach, but
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 1:03 PM Darafei "Komяpa" Praliaskouski
wrote:
>>
>>
>> This is somewhat similar to a memory usage problem with a
>> parallel query where each worker is allowed to use up to work_mem of
>> memory. We can say that the users using parallel operation can expect
>> more system
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 1:51 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 3:54 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > I think approach-2 is better in throttling the system as it doesn't
> > have the drawback of the first approach, but it might be a bit tricky
> > to implement.
>
> I might be
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 3:54 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> I think approach-2 is better in throttling the system as it doesn't
> have the drawback of the first approach, but it might be a bit tricky
> to implement.
I might be missing something but I think that there could be the
drawback of the
>
>
> This is somewhat similar to a memory usage problem with a
> parallel query where each worker is allowed to use up to work_mem of
> memory. We can say that the users using parallel operation can expect
> more system resources to be used as they want to get the operation
> done faster, so we
43 matches
Mail list logo
