Re: Reduce heap tuple header size

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 #