Re: Performance degradation in Bitmapscan (commit 75ae538bc3168bf44475240d4e0487ee2f3bb376)

From: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Performance degradation in Bitmapscan (commit 75ae538bc3168bf44475240d4e0487ee2f3bb376)
Date: 2016-11-16 11:15:59
Message-ID: CAFiTN-soU=xg=BQw7qNfwmfyHD_L03-17a3hUzDDkXUQ68q_9w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 12:58 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> It's not really related to lossy pages, it's just that due to deletions
> / insertions a lot more "shapes" of the hashtable are hit.
Okay..
>
> I suspect that this is with parallelism disabled? Without that the query
> ends up using a parallel sequential scan for me.
>

It's with max_parallel_worker_per_gather=2, I always noticed that Q6
takes parallel seq scan only for
max_parallel_worker_per_gather=4 or more..
>
> I've a working fix for this, and for a similar issue Robert found. I'm
> still playing around with it, but basically the fix is to make the
> growth policy a bit more adaptive.

Okay.. Thanks.

--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2016-11-16 12:12:10 Re: Snapshot too old logging
Previous Message Ashutosh Bapat 2016-11-16 11:10:17 Re: pg_hba_file_settings view patch