On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 5:14 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 4:23 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > .. > > > I have tested the same with some other workload(test file attached). > > > I can see the same behaviour with this workload as well that with the > > > patch 4 the distribution of the delay is better compared to other > > > patches i.e. worker with more I/O have more delay and with equal IO > > > have alsomost equal delay. Only thing is that the total delay with > > > the patch 4 is slightly less compared to other pacthes. > > > > > > > I see one problem with the formula you have used in the patch, maybe > > that is causing the value of total delay to go down. > > > > - if (new_balance >= VacuumCostLimit) > > + VacuumCostBalanceLocal += VacuumCostBalance; > > + if ((new_balance >= VacuumCostLimit) && > > + (VacuumCostBalanceLocal > VacuumCostLimit/(0.5 * nworker))) > > > > As per discussion, the second part of the condition should be > > "VacuumCostBalanceLocal > (0.5) * VacuumCostLimit/nworker". > My Bad > I think > > you can once change this and try again. Also, please try with the > > different values of threshold (0.3, 0.5, 0.7, etc.). > > > Okay, I will retest with both patch3 and path4 for both the scenarios. > I will also try with different multipliers. >
One more thing, I think we should also test these cases with a varying number of indexes (say 2,6,8,etc.) and then probably, we should test by a varying number of workers where the number of workers are lesser than indexes. You can do these after finishing your previous experiments. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
