From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: 9.3: load path to mitigate load penalty for checksums |
Date: | 2012-06-13 02:41:14 |
Message-ID: | 1339555274.16373.61.camel@sussancws0025 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2012-06-12 at 22:06 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > How much of a savings did we get from PD_ALL_VISIBLE when it was added
> > into the page-at-a-time visibility check?
> >
> > >From 608195a3a3656145a7eec7a47d903bc684011d73:
> >
> > "In addition to the visibility map, there's a new PD_ALL_VISIBLE flag on
> > each heap page, also indicating that all tuples on the page are visible
> > to all transactions. It's important that this flag is kept up-to-date.
> > It is also used to skip visibility tests in sequential scans, which
> > gives a small performance gain on seqscans."
> >
> > If "small" means that it's something we can give up, then focusing on
> > HEAP_XMIN_COMMITTED makes sense. But if we can't give it up, then we
> > need to take it into account in the proposal.
>
> It's significant.
In that case, the proposals that only involve HEAP_XMIN_COMMITTED don't
seem viable to me. To get maxiumum read speed, we will need to set
PD_ALL_VISIBLE also, and that means rewriting the entire table anyway
(for the workload that I'm describing).
However, maybe if we combine the approaches, readers could ignore
PD_ALL_VISIBLE during the load, which looks like maybe a 10% penalty,
without having to ignore HEAP_XMIN_COMMITTED (which seems much more
costly to ignore).
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2012-06-13 02:55:42 | Re: Avoiding adjacent checkpoint records |
Previous Message | Jeff Davis | 2012-06-13 02:30:04 | Re: 16-bit page checksums for 9.2 |