From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Luke Lonergan <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Sync Scan update |
Date: | 2006-12-19 17:07:17 |
Message-ID: | 45881C45.8040509@j-davis.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I have updated my Synchronized Scan patch and have had more time for
testing.
Go to http://j-davis.com/postgresql/syncscan-results10.html
where you can download the patch, and see the benchmarks that I've run.
The results are very promising. I did not see any significant slowdown
for non-concurrent scans or for scans that fit into memory, although I
do need more testing in this area.
The benchmarks that I ran tested the concurrent performance, and the
results were excellent.
I also added two new simple features to the patch (they're just
#define'd tunables in heapam.h):
(1) If the table is smaller than
effective_cache_size*SYNC_SCAN_THRESHOLD then the patch doesn't do
anything different from current behavior.
(2) The scans can start earlier than the hint implies by setting
SYNC_SCAN_START_OFFSET between 0 and 1. This is helpful because it makes
the scan start in a place where the cache trail is likely to be
continuous between the starting point and the location of an existing scan.
I'd like any feedback, particularly any results that show a slowdown
from current behavior. I think I fixed Luke's problem (actually, it was
a fluke that it was even working at all), but I haven't heard back. Some
new feedback would be very helpful.
Thanks.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matthew O'Connor | 2006-12-19 17:07:41 | Re: Autovacuum Improvements |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-12-19 17:01:44 | Re: Autovacuum Improvements (was: Second attempt, |