On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 07:42:54AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 8:47 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 05:18:17PM -0400, Asim Praveen wrote:
> >> Hi Amit
> >>
> >> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:25 AM, Amit Kapila
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > This is one way, bu
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:25 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 6:33 AM, Asim Praveen wrote:
>>> We are evaluating the use of shared buffers for temporary tables. The
>>> advantage being queries involving temporary tables can
On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:25 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 6:33 AM, Asim Praveen wrote:
>> We are evaluating the use of shared buffers for temporary tables. The
>> advantage being queries involving temporary tables can make use of parallel
>> workers.
> This is one way, but I
On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 8:47 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 05:18:17PM -0400, Asim Praveen wrote:
>> Hi Amit
>>
>> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:25 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> >
>> > This is one way, but I think there are other choices as well. We can
>> > identify and flush all th
On Sat, Jun 2, 2018 at 05:18:17PM -0400, Asim Praveen wrote:
> Hi Amit
>
> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:25 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >
> > This is one way, but I think there are other choices as well. We can
> > identify and flush all the dirty (local) buffers for the relation
> > being accessed pa
Hi Amit
On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 4:25 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
> This is one way, but I think there are other choices as well. We can
> identify and flush all the dirty (local) buffers for the relation
> being accessed parallelly. Now, once the parallel operation is
> started, we won't allow per
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 6:33 AM, Asim Praveen wrote:
> Hello
>
> We are evaluating the use of shared buffers for temporary tables. The
> advantage being queries involving temporary tables can make use of parallel
> workers.
>
This is one way, but I think there are other choices as well. We can
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 11:50 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2018-05-25 09:40:10 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > On 25/05/18 09:25, Asim Praveen wrote:
> > > My parochial vision of the overhead is restricted to 4 * NBuffers of
> > > additional shared memory, as 4 bytes are being added to Buff
On 2018-05-25 09:40:10 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 25/05/18 09:25, Asim Praveen wrote:
> > My parochial vision of the overhead is restricted to 4 * NBuffers of
> > additional shared memory, as 4 bytes are being added to BufferTag. May I
> > please get some enlightenment?
>
> Any extra f
On 25/05/18 09:25, Asim Praveen wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 8:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
So then you have to think about how to transition smoothly between "rel
is in local buffers" and "rel is in shared buffers", bearing in mind that
ever having the same page in two different buffers would be
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 8:19 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> So then you have to think about how to transition smoothly between "rel
> is in local buffers" and "rel is in shared buffers", bearing in mind that
> ever having the same page in two different buffers would be disastrous.
Local buffers would no
Asim Praveen writes:
> We are evaluating the use of shared buffers for temporary tables. The
> advantage being queries involving temporary tables can make use of parallel
> workers.
Hm...
> Challenges:
> 1. We lose the performance benefit of local buffers.
Yeah. This would be an absolute dea
12 matches
Mail list logo
