On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 1:58 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 7:20 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 1:35 PM Haribabu Kommi <kommi.harib...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 9:17 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> > 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 performance overhead, may be it is > > > because, I tested it on my laptop. > > > > Hmm, I think the parallel vacuum would help for heavy workloads like a > > big table with multiple indexes. In your test result, all executions > > are completed within 1 sec, which seems to be one use case that the > > parallel vacuum wouldn't help. I suspect that the table is small, > > right? Anyway I'll also do performance tests. > > > > 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' column). In my environment, > > indexes | parallel_degree | patched | head | speed_up > ---------+-----------------+------------+------------+---------- > 0 | 0 | 238.2085 | 244.7625 | 1.0275 > 0 | 1 | 237.7050 | 244.7625 | 1.0297 > 0 | 2 | 238.0390 | 244.7625 | 1.0282 > 0 | 4 | 238.1045 | 244.7625 | 1.0280 > 0 | 8 | 237.8995 | 244.7625 | 1.0288 > 0 | 16 | 237.7775 | 244.7625 | 1.0294 > 1 | 0 | 1328.8590 | 1334.9125 | 1.0046 > 1 | 1 | 1325.9140 | 1334.9125 | 1.0068 > 1 | 2 | 1333.3665 | 1334.9125 | 1.0012 > 1 | 4 | 1329.5205 | 1334.9125 | 1.0041 > 1 | 8 | 1334.2255 | 1334.9125 | 1.0005 > 1 | 16 | 1335.1510 | 1334.9125 | 0.9998 > 2 | 0 | 2426.2905 | 2427.5165 | 1.0005 > 2 | 1 | 1416.0595 | 2427.5165 | 1.7143 > 2 | 2 | 1411.6270 | 2427.5165 | 1.7197 > 2 | 4 | 1411.6490 | 2427.5165 | 1.7196 > 2 | 8 | 1410.1750 | 2427.5165 | 1.7214 > 2 | 16 | 1413.4985 | 2427.5165 | 1.7174 > 4 | 0 | 4622.5060 | 4619.0340 | 0.9992 > 4 | 1 | 2536.8435 | 4619.0340 | 1.8208 > 4 | 2 | 2548.3615 | 4619.0340 | 1.8126 > 4 | 4 | 1467.9655 | 4619.0340 | 3.1466 > 4 | 8 | 1486.3155 | 4619.0340 | 3.1077 > 4 | 16 | 1481.7150 | 4619.0340 | 3.1174 > 8 | 0 | 9039.3810 | 8990.4735 | 0.9946 > 8 | 1 | 4807.5880 | 8990.4735 | 1.8701 > 8 | 2 | 3786.7620 | 8990.4735 | 2.3742 > 8 | 4 | 2924.2205 | 8990.4735 | 3.0745 > 8 | 8 | 2684.2545 | 8990.4735 | 3.3493 > 8 | 16 | 2672.9800 | 8990.4735 | 3.3635 > 16 | 0 | 17821.4715 | 17740.1300 | 0.9954 > 16 | 1 | 9318.3810 | 17740.1300 | 1.9038 > 16 | 2 | 7260.6315 | 17740.1300 | 2.4433 > 16 | 4 | 5538.5225 | 17740.1300 | 3.2030 > 16 | 8 | 5368.5255 | 17740.1300 | 3.3045 > 16 | 16 | 5291.8510 | 17740.1300 | 3.3523 > (36 rows) > 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 lead to performance overhead. Regards, Haribabu Kommi Fujitsu Australia
