On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 4:03 AM Justin Pryzby wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 04:17:21PM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 02:38:27PM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > > On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 04:14:04PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I see some basic problems
Le dim. 12 avr. 2020 à 00:33, Justin Pryzby a écrit :
> On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 04:17:21PM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> >
> > Just to be sure I did a quick test with pg_stat_statements behavior using
> > parallel/non-parallel CREATE INDEX and VACUUM, and unsurprisingly buffer
> usage
> >
On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 04:17:21PM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 02:38:27PM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 04:14:04PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > I see some basic problems with the patch. The way it tries to compute
> > > WAL usage for
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 1:49 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 16:04, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 11:53 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 14:44, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the investigation. I
On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 16:04, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 11:53 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 14:44, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks for the investigation. I don't see we can do anything special
> > > about this. In an ideal world, this
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 8:23 AM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 14:44, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 5:17 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 18:29, Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 17:42, Amit
On Wed, Apr 8, 2020 at 11:53 AM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 14:44, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> >
> > Thanks for the investigation. I don't see we can do anything special
> > about this. In an ideal world, this should be done once and not for
> > each worker but I guess it
On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 at 14:44, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 5:17 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 18:29, Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 17:42, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 1:30 PM Masahiko Sawada
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 5:17 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 18:29, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 17:42, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 1:30 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Buffer usage statistics seem correct.
On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 18:29, Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 17:42, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 1:30 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Buffer usage statistics seem correct. The small differences would be
> > > catalog lookups Peter mentioned.
> > >
On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 17:42, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 1:30 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > Buffer usage statistics seem correct. The small differences would be
> > catalog lookups Peter mentioned.
> >
>
> Agreed, but can you check which part of code does that lookup? I
On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 1:30 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> Buffer usage statistics seem correct. The small differences would be
> catalog lookups Peter mentioned.
>
Agreed, but can you check which part of code does that lookup? I want
to see if we can avoid that from buffer usage stats or at
On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 02:40, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:21 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > AFAIU, it uses heapam_index_build_range_scan but for writing to index,
> > it doesn't use buffer manager.
>
> Right. It doesn't need to use the buffer manager to write to the
> index,
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 2:21 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
> AFAIU, it uses heapam_index_build_range_scan but for writing to index,
> it doesn't use buffer manager.
Right. It doesn't need to use the buffer manager to write to the
index, unlike (say) GIN's CREATE INDEX.
--
Peter Geoghegan
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 12:55 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 at 16:16, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 11:19 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > The attached patch changes to the above comment and removed the code
> > > that is used to un-support only
On Mon, 6 Apr 2020 at 16:16, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 11:19 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > The attached patch changes to the above comment and removed the code
> > that is used to un-support only buffer usage accumulation.
> >
>
> So, IIUC, the purpose of this patch
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 11:19 AM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> The attached patch changes to the above comment and removed the code
> that is used to un-support only buffer usage accumulation.
>
So, IIUC, the purpose of this patch will be to count the buffer usage
due to the heap scan (in
On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 at 14:13, Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 at 12:58, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:31 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > The patch for vacuum conflicts with recent changes in vacuum. So I've
> > > attached rebased one.
> > >
> >
>
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 9:13 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:34 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 7:52 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > Peter, Is this behavior expected?
> > >
> > > Let me summarize the situation so that it would be easier for Peter to
> > >
On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 8:34 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 7:52 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> > Peter, Is this behavior expected?
> >
> > Let me summarize the situation so that it would be easier for Peter to
> > comment. Julien has noticed that parallel vacuum and parallel
On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 7:52 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
> Peter, Is this behavior expected?
>
> Let me summarize the situation so that it would be easier for Peter to
> comment. Julien has noticed that parallel vacuum and parallel create
> index doesn't seem to report correct values for buffer usage
Adding Peter G.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 12:41 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> I have done some testing for the parallel "create index".
>
> postgres[99536]=# show maintenance_work_mem ;
> maintenance_work_mem
> --
> 1MB
> (1 row)
>
> CREATE TABLE test (a int, b int);
> INSERT INTO
On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 12:01 PM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 8:51 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > > Agreed. I've attached the updated patch.
> > >
> > > Thank you for testing, Dilip!
> >
> > Thanks! One hunk is failing on the latest head. And, I have rebased
> > the patch for my
On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 8:51 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 8:26 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 11:46, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 7:32 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > > >
> > > > While testing I have found one issue. Basically,
On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 8:51 AM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> > Agreed. I've attached the updated patch.
> >
> > Thank you for testing, Dilip!
>
> Thanks! One hunk is failing on the latest head. And, I have rebased
> the patch for my testing so posting the same. I have done some more
> testing to test
On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 8:26 AM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 11:46, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 7:32 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> > >
> > > While testing I have found one issue. Basically, during a parallel
> > > vacuum, it was showing more number of
> > >
On Wed, 1 Apr 2020 at 11:46, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 7:32 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > While testing I have found one issue. Basically, during a parallel
> > vacuum, it was showing more number of
> > shared_blk_hits+shared_blks_read. After, some investigation, I found
>
On Wed, Apr 1, 2020 at 8:16 AM Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 7:32 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
> >
> > While testing I have found one issue. Basically, during a parallel
> > vacuum, it was showing more number of
> > shared_blk_hits+shared_blks_read. After, some investigation, I found
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 7:32 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> While testing I have found one issue. Basically, during a parallel
> vacuum, it was showing more number of
> shared_blk_hits+shared_blks_read. After, some investigation, I found
> that during the cleanup phase nworkers are -1, and because
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 12:20 PM Dilip Kumar wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 10:44 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 at 12:58, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:31 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The patch for vacuum conflicts
On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 10:44 AM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 at 12:58, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:31 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > The patch for vacuum conflicts with recent changes in vacuum. So I've
> > > attached rebased one.
> > >
>
On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 at 12:58, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:31 PM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > The patch for vacuum conflicts with recent changes in vacuum. So I've
> > attached rebased one.
> >
>
> + /*
> + * Next, accumulate buffer usage. (This must wait for the
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 12:31 PM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> The patch for vacuum conflicts with recent changes in vacuum. So I've
> attached rebased one.
>
+ /*
+ * Next, accumulate buffer usage. (This must wait for the workers to
+ * finish, or we might get incomplete data.)
+ */
+ for (i = 0;
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 04:01:18PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 at 15:46, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 20:44, Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > I think we need to change parallel maintenance commands so that they
> > > > > > report
On Mon, 30 Mar 2020 at 15:46, Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 20:44, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 20:15, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 1:44 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 9:52 AM Masahiko
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 20:44, Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 20:15, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 1:44 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 9:52 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I've run vacuum with/without parallel
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 20:15, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 1:44 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 9:52 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I've run vacuum with/without parallel workers on the table having 5
> > > indexes. The vacuum reads all
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 1:44 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 9:52 AM Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > I've run vacuum with/without parallel workers on the table having 5
> > indexes. The vacuum reads all blocks of table and indexes.
> >
> > * VACUUM command with no parallel
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 9:52 AM Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 15:19, Masahiko Sawada
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 14:23, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 8:47 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 02:38:27PM +0100,
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 15:19, Masahiko Sawada
wrote:
>
> On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 14:23, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 8:47 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 02:38:27PM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 04:14:04PM +0530,
On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 at 14:23, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 8:47 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 02:38:27PM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > > On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 04:14:04PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I see some basic problems with the
On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 8:47 PM Julien Rouhaud wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 02:38:27PM +0100, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 04:14:04PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > >
> > > I see some basic problems with the patch. The way it tries to compute
> > > WAL usage for
42 matches
Mail list logo
