Re: limiting hint bit I/O

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: limiting hint bit I/O
Date: 2011-01-14 18:16:45
Message-ID: 8703.1295029005@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Well, it reinforces my opinion that it's experimental ;-). But "first
>> run" of what, exactly?

> See the test case in my OP. The "runs" in question are "select sum(1) from s".

>> And are you sure you're taking a wholistic view
>> of the costs/benefits?

> No.

Well, IMO it would be a catastrophic mistake to evaluate a patch like
this on the basis of any single test case, let alone one as simplistic
as that. I would observe in particular that your test case creates a
table containing only one distinct value of xmin, which means that the
single-transaction cache in transam.c is 100% effective, which doesn't
seem to me to be a very realistic test condition. I think this is
vastly understating the cost of missing hint bits.

So what it needs now is a lot more testing. pg_bench might be worth
trying if you want something with minimal development effort, though
I'm not sure if its clog access pattern is particularly realistic
either.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2011-01-14 18:34:11 Re: limiting hint bit I/O
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2011-01-14 18:14:27 Re: FOR KEY LOCK foreign keys