From: | Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Index-only scan performance regression |
Date: | 2012-02-01 09:09:56 |
Message-ID: | CAEZATCVenh5+N=BeksYTacC5G+GhiCJnrgKny9opQin0OwSZHQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 31 January 2012 23:04, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> The thing I'm unsure about is whether sending sinval
>> messages when the visibility map is extended is a good idea.
>
> Seems perfectly reasonable to me. They'd occur so seldom as to be
> more than repaid if we can scrape some cost out of the mainline paths.
>
OK, thanks. That's good.
> The real objection to this probably is that if it only saves anything
> for tables that don't have a VM yet, it's dubious whether it's worth
> doing. But if we can avoid wasted checks for VM extension as well,
> then I think it's probably a no-brainer.
>
> regards, tom lane
Yes it applies in the same way to VM extension - if the table has
grown and the VM has not yet been extended, but I don't see why that
is any worse than the case of not having a VM yet.
Actually I think that this is not such an uncommon case - for a table
which has only had data inserted - no deletes or updates - it is
tempting to think that ANALYSE is sufficient, and that there is no
need to VACUUM. If it were simply the case that this caused an
index-only scan to have no real benefit, you might be willing to live
with normal index scan performance. But actually it causes a very
significant performance regression beyond that, to well below 9.1
performance.
Regards,
Dean
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marko Kreen | 2012-02-01 09:52:27 | Re: Speed dblink using alternate libpq tuple storage |
Previous Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2012-02-01 08:32:16 | Re: Speed dblink using alternate libpq tuple storage |