Greetings, * Jeff Janes (jeff.ja...@gmail.com) wrote: > On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 1:54 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > For parallel vacuum [1], we were discussing what is the best way to > > divide the cost among parallel workers but we didn't get many inputs > > apart from people who are very actively involved in patch development. > > I feel that we need some more inputs before we finalize anything, so > > starting a new thread. > > Maybe a I just don't have experience in the type of system that parallel > vacuum is needed for, but if there is any meaningful IO throttling which is > active, then what is the point of doing the vacuum in parallel in the first > place?
With parallelization across indexes, you could have a situation where the individual indexes are on different tablespaces with independent i/o, therefore the parallelization ends up giving you an increase in i/o throughput, not just additional CPU time. Thanks, Stephen
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
