On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Haribabu Kommi <kommi.harib...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I will do some performance tests and send you the results.
Here are the performance results tested on my machine.
Head vm patch vm+prefetch patch
First vacuum 120sec <1sec <1sec
second vacuum 180 sec 180 sec 30 sec
I did some modifications in the code to skip the vacuum truncation by
the first vacuum command.
This way I collected the second vacuum time taken performance.
I just combined your vm and prefetch patch into a single patch
vm+prefetch patch without a GUC.
I kept the prefetch as 32 and did the performance test. I chosen
prefetch based on the current
buffer access strategy, which is 32 for vacuum presently instead of an
user option.
Here I attached the modified patch with both vm+prefetch logic.
I will do some tests on a machine with SSD and let you know the
results. Based on these results,
we can decide whether we need a GUC or not? based on the impact of
prefetch on ssd machines.
Regards,
Hari Babu
Fujitsu Australia
vac_trunc_trust_vm_and_prefetch.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
