| From: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: To what extent should tests rely on VACUUM ANALYZE? |
| Date: | 2024-03-29 14:00:00 |
| Message-ID: | 7ab316cf-27a0-12f0-35f0-8f1277df2783@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Tom,
29.03.2024 16:51, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I think that deviation can be explained by the fact that cost_index() takes
>> baserel->allvisfrac (derived from pg_class.relallvisible) into account for
>> the index-only-scan case, and I see the following difference when a test
>> run fails:
>> relname | relpages | reltuples | relallvisible | indisvalid | autovacuum_count | autoanalyze_count
>> ----------------------+----------+-----------+---------------+------------+------------------+-------------------
>> - tenk1 | 345 | 10000 | 345 | | 0 | 0
>> + tenk1 | 345 | 10000 | 305 | | 0 | 0
> Ouch. So what's triggering that? The intention of test_setup
> surely is to provide a uniform starting point.
Thanks for your attention to the issue!
Please try the attached...
Best regards,
Alexander
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| cranky-ConditionalLockBufferForCleanup.patch | text/x-patch | 3.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2024-03-29 14:01:05 | Re: remaining sql/json patches |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-03-29 13:51:24 | Re: To what extent should tests rely on VACUUM ANALYZE? |