Re: Fwd: [HACKERS] Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem

2017-07-13 Thread Claudio Freire
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 1:29 PM, Claudio Freire wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Claudio Freire > wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Alexey Chernyshov >> wrote: >>> Thank you for the patch and

Re: Fwd: [HACKERS] Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem

2017-07-12 Thread Claudio Freire
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Claudio Freire wrote: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Alexey Chernyshov > wrote: >> Thank you for the patch and benchmark results, I have a couple remarks. >> Firstly, padding in DeadTuplesSegment >> >>

Re: Fwd: [HACKERS] Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem

2017-07-12 Thread Claudio Freire
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Alexey Chernyshov wrote: > Thank you for the patch and benchmark results, I have a couple remarks. > Firstly, padding in DeadTuplesSegment > > typedef struct DeadTuplesSegment > > { > > ItemPointerData last_dead_tuple;/* Copy

Re: Fwd: [HACKERS] Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem

2017-07-12 Thread Alexey Chernyshov
Thank you for the patch and benchmark results, I have a couple remarks. Firstly, padding in DeadTuplesSegment typedef struct DeadTuplesSegment { ItemPointerData last_dead_tuple;/* Copy of the last dead tuple (unset * until the segment is

Fwd: [HACKERS] Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem

2017-07-11 Thread Claudio Freire
Resending without the .tar.bz2 that get blocked Sorry for the delay, I had extended vacations that kept me away from my test rigs, and afterward testing too, liteally, a few weeks. I built a more thoroguh test script that produced some interesting results. Will attach the results. For now, to