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
-
Allocate consecutive blocks during parallel seqscans
- 56788d2156fc 14.0 landed