Re: Reduce heap tuple header size

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg(at)aon(dot)at>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Reduce heap tuple header size
Date: 2002-06-25 13:38:52
Message-ID: 200206251338.g5PDcqk06205@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches


Jan, any update on this? Are the numbers correct?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jan Wieck wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > Jan Wieck wrote:
> > >
> > > Did someone run at least pgbench with/without that patch applied?
> >
> > No, but he did perform this analysis:
> >
> > > thus reducing the additional cost to one t_infomask compare,
> > > because the Satisfies functions only access Cmin and Cmax,
> > > when HEAP_MOVED is known to be not set.
> > >
> > > OTOH experimenting with a moderatly sized "out of production"
> > > database I got the following results:
> > > | pages | pages |
> > > relkind | count | tuples | before| after | savings
> > > --------+-------+--------+-------+-------+--------
> > > i | 31 | 808146 | 8330 | 8330 | 0.00%
> > > r | 32 | 612968 | 13572 | 13184 | 2.86%
> > > all | 63 | | 21902 | 21514 | 1.77%
> > >
> > > 2.86% fewer heap pages mean 2.86% less disk IO caused by heap pages.
> > > Considering that index pages tend to benefit more from caching
> > > we conclude that heap pages contribute more to the overall
> > > IO load, so the total savings in the number of disk IOs should
> > > be better than the 1.77% shown in the table above. I think
> > > this outweighs a few CPU cycles now and then.
>
> This anawhat? This is a proof that this patch is able to save not even
> 3% of disk space in a production environment plus an assumption that the
> saved IO outweights the extra effort in the tuple visibility checks.
>
> Here are some numbers:
>
> P3 850MHz 256MB RAM IDE
> postmaster -N256 -B8192
> pgbench -i -s 10 db
> pgbench -c 20 -t 500 db
>
>
> Current CVS tip: tps 34.1, 38.7, 36.6
> avg(tps) 36.4
>
> With patch: tps 37.0, 41.1, 41.1
> avg(tps) 39.7
>
> So it saves less than 3% disk space at the cost of about 9% performance
> loss. If we can do the same the other way around I'd go for wasting some
> more disk space.
>
>
> Jan
>
> --
>
> #======================================================================#
> # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
> # Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
> #================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Curt Sampson 2002-06-25 13:52:14 Re: Buffer Management
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2002-06-25 13:22:05 Re: Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Neil Conway 2002-06-25 14:11:16 Re: several minor cleanups
Previous Message Andrew Sullivan 2002-06-25 12:31:45 Re: Some Solaris notes, and an invitation