On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 at 08:00, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 10:10 PM David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Here's a patch which caps the maximum chunk size to 131072. If
> > someone doubles the page size then that'll be 2GB instead of 1GB. I'm
> > not personally worried about that.
>
> Maybe use RELSEG_SIZE?
I was hoping to keep the guarantees that the chunk size is always a
power of 2. If, for example, someone configured PostgreSQL
--with-segsize=3, then RELSEG_SIZE would be 393216 with the standard
BLCKSZ.
Not having it a power of 2 does mean the ramp-down is more uneven when
the sizes become very small:
postgres=# select 393216>>x from generate_Series(0,18)x;
?column?
----------
393216
196608
98304
49152
24576
12288
6144
3072
1536
768
384
192
96
48
24
12
6
3
1
(19 rows)
Perhaps that's not a problem though, but then again, perhaps just
keeping it at 131072 regardless of RELSEG_SIZE and BLCKSZ is also ok.
The benchmarks I did on Windows [1] showed that the returns diminished
once we started making the step size some decent amount so my thoughts
are that I've set PARALLEL_SEQSCAN_MAX_CHUNK_SIZE to something large
enough that it'll make no difference to the performance anyway. So
there's probably not much point in giving it too much thought.
Perhaps pg_nextpower2_32(RELSEG_SIZE) would be okay though.
David
[1]
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/caaphdvoppka+q5y_k_6cuv4u6dphmz771veumuzls3d3mwy...@mail.gmail.com
