From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: the big picture for index-only scans |
Date: | 2011-05-11 14:40:58 |
Message-ID: | 25723.1305124858@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On 10.05.2011 20:15, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> I can picture that. Regrettably, I can also picture the accesses to
>> the visibility map, the maintenance operations on the VM that are
>> needed for this and the contention that both of those will cause.
> I agree that we need to do tests to demonstrate that there's a gain from
> the patch, once we have a patch to test. I would be very surprised if
> there isn't, but that just means the testing is going to be easy.
I think Simon's point is that showing a gain on specific test cases
isn't a sufficient argument. What we need to know about this sort of
change is what is the distributed overhead that is going to be paid by
*everybody*, whether their queries benefit from the optimization or not.
And what fraction of real-world queries really do benefit, and to what
extent. Isolated test cases (undoubtedly chosen to show off the
optimization) are not adequate to form a picture of the overall cost and
benefit.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-05-11 14:45:08 | Re: the big picture for index-only scans |
Previous Message | Albe Laurenz | 2011-05-11 14:40:49 | Fix for bug in ldapServiceLookup in libpq |