From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Limiting setting of hint bits by read-only queries; vacuum_delay |
Date: | 2013-03-25 21:21:38 |
Message-ID: | CAHyXU0yxkmypoHwyt1VgnUpyxfkioepP7i4os+iJBneqjfkkEw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 25 March 2013 14:26, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> This is pretty similar to the proposal Atri and I just recently made.
>> I am 100% in agreement that something must be done here...SELECT has
>> none of the i/o mitigation features that vacuum has. Is your idea
>> better? probably (although you have to give a small penalty for a user
>> facing tunable)
>
> I was hoping this was a new idea entirely, since I was focusing on
> simply limiting foreground work rather than trying to work out how to
> optimise foreground work or work out how to make background tasks work
> better.
They are very similar, in that based on $simple_condition hint bits do
not get written out during a scan. Also, the effect in both cases is
to push more work into vacuum.
Our $simple_condition was a little different and maybe less good than
yours, but that should be proven. A good starting point would be to
run the battery of performance tests that Amit and Hari ran against
what Atri proposed. After seeing the results, I hedged on pushing the
patch further -- it wasn't clear that the results were win-win and I
think your patch idea mostly has the same pros/cons (see:
http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/WIP-patch-for-hint-bit-i-o-mitigation-td5730963i20.html).
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2013-03-25 21:23:23 | Re: Limiting setting of hint bits by read-only queries; vacuum_delay |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-03-25 20:44:43 | Re: Limiting setting of hint bits by read-only queries; vacuum_delay |