On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 10:51 PM, Claudio Freire <klaussfre...@gmail.com> wrote: > Indeed they do, and that's what motivated this patch. But I'd need > TB-sized tables to set up something like that. I don't have the > hardware or time available to do that (vacuum on bloated TB-sized > tables can take days in my experience). Scale 4000 is as big as I can > get without running out of space for the tests in my test hardware. > > If anybody else has the ability, I'd be thankful if they did test it > under those conditions, but I cannot. I think Anastasia's test is > closer to such a test, that's probably why it shows a bigger > improvement in total elapsed time. > > Our production database could possibly be used, but it can take about > a week to clone it, upgrade it (it's 9.5 currently), and run the > relevant vacuum.
It looks like I won't be able to do that test with a production snapshot anytime soon. Getting approval for the budget required to do that looks like it's going to take far longer than I thought. Regardless of that, I think the patch can move forward. I'm still planning to do the test at some point, but this patch shouldn't block on it. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
