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, but I got some strange results of performance overhead, may be it is because, I tested it on my laptop. FYI, Table schema: create table tbl(f1 int, f2 char(100), f3 float4, f4 char(100), f5 float8, f6 char(100), f7 bigint); Tbl with 3 indexes 1000 record deletion master - 22ms patch - 25ms with 0 parallel workers patch - 43ms with 1 parallel worker patch - 72ms with 2 parallel workers 10000 record deletion master - 52ms patch - 56ms with 0 parallel workers patch - 79ms with 1 parallel worker patch - 86ms with 2 parallel workers 100000 record deletion master - 410ms patch - 379ms with 0 parallel workers patch - 330ms with 1 parallel worker patch - 289ms with 2 parallel workers Tbl with 5 indexes 1000 record deletion master - 28ms patch - 34ms with 0 parallel workers patch - 86ms with 2 parallel workers patch - 106ms with 4 parallel workers 10000 record deletion master - 58ms patch - 63ms with 0 parallel workers patch - 101ms with 2 parallel workers patch - 118ms with 4 parallel workers 100000 record deletion master - 632ms patch - 490ms with 0 parallel workers patch - 455ms with 2 parallel workers patch - 403ms with 4 parallel workers Tbl with 7 indexes 1000 record deletion master - 35ms patch - 44ms with 0 parallel workers patch - 93ms with 2 parallel workers patch - 110ms with 4 parallel workers patch - 123ms with 6 parallel workers 10000 record deletion master - 76ms patch - 78ms with 0 parallel workers patch - 135ms with 2 parallel workers patch - 143ms with 4 parallel workers patch - 139ms with 6 parallel workers 100000 record deletion master - 641ms patch - 656ms with 0 parallel workers patch - 613ms with 2 parallel workers patch - 735ms with 4 parallel workers patch - 679ms with 6 parallel workers Regards, Haribabu Kommi Fujitsu Australia
