On 5/20/24 2:58 AM, John Naylor wrote:
> Hi Jon,
>
> Regarding vacuum "has shown up to a 6x improvement in overall time to
> complete its work" -- I believe I've seen reported numbers close to
> that only 1) when measuring the index phase in isolation or maybe 2)
> the entire vacuum of unlogged tables with one, perfectly-correlated
> index (testing has less variance with WAL out of the picture). I
> believe tables with many indexes would show a lot of improvement, but
> I'm not aware of testing that case specifically. Can you clarify where
> 6x came from?
Sawada-san showed me the original context, but I can't rapidly find it
in the thread. Sawada-san, can you please share the numbers behind this?
We can adjust the claim - but I'd like to ensure we highlight how the
changes to vacuum will visibly impact users.
Jonathan