From: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Cédric Villemain <cedric(dot)villemain(dot)debian(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [WIP] cache estimates, cache access cost |
Date: | 2011-06-19 21:32:42 |
Message-ID: | 4DFE6AFA.507@2ndQuadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/19/2011 09:38 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
> There's another problem which I haven't seen mentioned. Because the
> access method will affect the cache there's the possibility of
> feedback loops. e.g. A freshly loaded system prefers sequential scans
> for a given table because without the cache the seeks of random reads
> are too expensive...
Not sure if it's been mentioned in this thread yet, but he feedback
issue has popped up in regards to this area plenty of times. I think
everyone who's producing regular input into this is aware of it, even if
it's not mentioned regularly. I'm not too concerned about the specific
case you warned about because I don't see how sequential scan vs. index
costing will be any different on a fresh system than it is now. But
there are plenty of cases like it to be mapped out here, and many are
not solvable--they're just something that needs to be documented as a risk.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.us
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-06-19 22:15:07 | Re: [WIP] cache estimates, cache access cost |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2011-06-19 21:16:13 | Re: the big picture for index-only scans |