Re: mosbench revisited

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: mosbench revisited
Date: 2011-08-03 19:38:50
Message-ID: 22145.1312400330@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 a straight pgbench -S test, you get four system calls per query:
> recvfrom(), lseek(), lseek(), sendto(). Adding -M prepared eliminates
> the two lseeks.

[ scratches head... ] Two? Is that one for the table and one for its
lone index, or are we being redundant there?

(If the query ended up being a seqscan, I'd expect a second
lseek(SEEK_END) when the executor starts up, but I gather from the other
complaints that the mosbench people were only testing simple indexscan
queries.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-08-03 20:03:39 Re: Further news on Clang - spurious warnings
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-08-03 19:33:37 Re: Transient plans versus the SPI API