Re: Parallel Seq Scan vs kernel read ahead

Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>

From: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
To: Ranier Vilela <ranier.vf@gmail.com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-05-20T21:48:42Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 11:03 PM Ranier Vilela <ranier.vf@gmail.com> wrote:
> Time: 47767,916 ms (00:47,768)
> Time: 32645,448 ms (00:32,645)

Just to make sure kernel caching isn't helping here, maybe try making
the table 2x or 4x bigger?  My test was on a virtual machine with only
4GB RAM, so the table couldn't be entirely cached.

> How display " -> execution time 5.2s, average read size ="?

Execution time is what you showed, and average read size should be
inside the Windows performance window somewhere (not sure what it's
called).



Commits

  1. Allocate consecutive blocks during parallel seqscans