Re: the big picture for index-only scans

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, "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 15:51:46
Message-ID: 4DCA6A42020000250003D566@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> I think Simon's point is that showing a gain on specific test
> cases isn't a sufficient argument.

Ah, if that's what he's been trying to get at, I'm curious who
disagrees with that. I wouldn't have thought anyone on this list
would.

> 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.

Certainly we need to test whether Heikki is right in the previously
non-quoted part of his post on this thread:

>> Note that we already have the visibility map, and the accesses
>> needed to update it are already there. Granted, we'll have to
>> change the logic slightly to make it crash safe, but I don't
>> expect that to add any meaningful overhead - the changes are
>> going to be where the bits are set, ie. vacuum, not when the bits
>> are cleared. Granted, we might also want to set the bits more
>> aggressively once they're used by index-only-scans. But done
>> correctly, just taking advantage of the VM that's already there
>> shouldn't add overhead to other operations.

> Isolated test cases (undoubtedly chosen to show off the
> optimization) are not adequate to form a picture of the overall
> cost and benefit.

Well, first, that hardly seems fair. I have many times seen people
make an effort to synthesize *worst* case benchmarks. Certainly any
regular on this list would know it is pointless to show only a best
case benchmark.

Second, we really need to make development of a performance testing
farm a priority at PGCon next week. The need for it just keeps
coming up over and over.

Third, Dan Ports has been working a great deal with DBT-2 running
PostgreSQL for the SSI patch, both as a stress tool to flush out
bugs and to get benchmarks numbers conforming to the published
requirements of that benchmark. I know from off-list emails that it
took a fair amount of work to get it running correctly with
PostgreSQL in his environment. We should probably try to draw on
that experience. (Of course that shouldn't be the *only* test in a
performance testing farm, but it's a good one to include.)

-Kevin

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2011-05-11 16:00:46 Re: Fix for bug in ldapServiceLookup in libpq
Previous Message Joseph Adams 2011-05-11 15:43:29 Re: VARIANT / ANYTYPE datatype