From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, jcnaylor(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: WIP: Avoid creation of the free space map for small tables |
Date: | 2018-11-04 03:58:58 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1J89ietFbVjn3ta-BnHD+g+pOouTmbrm-w2TxA81A0dWQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 5:56 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 10:38:45AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > I think it's in evidence, in the form of several messages mentioning a
> > flag called try_every_block.
> >
> > Just checking the last page of the table doesn't sound like a good
> > idea to me. I think that will just lead to a lot of stupid bloat. It
> > seems likely that checking every page of the table is fine for npages
> > <= 3, and that would still be win in a very significant number of
> > cases, since lots of instances have many empty or tiny tables. I was
> > merely reacting to the suggestion that the approach should be used for
> > npages <= 32; that threshold sounds way too high.
>
> It seems to me that it would be costly for schemas which have one core
> table with a couple of records used in many joins with other queries.
> Imagine for example a core table like that:
> CREATE TABLE us_states (id serial, initials varchar(2));
> INSERT INTO us_states VALUES (DEFAULT, 'CA');
>
> If there is a workload where those initials need to be fetched a lot,
> this patch could cause a loss.
>
How alone fetching would cause any loss? If it gets updated, then
there is a chance that we might have some performance impact.
> It looks hard to me to put a straight
> number on when not having the FSM is better than having it because that
> could be environment-dependent, so there is an argument for making the
> default very low, still configurable?
>
I think 3 or 4 as threshold should work fine (though we need to
thoroughly test that) as we will anyway avoid having three additional
pages of FSM for such tables. I am not sure how easy it would be for
users to set this value if we make it configurable or on what basis
can they configure?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Edmund Horner | 2018-11-04 04:20:32 | Re: Tid scan improvements |
Previous Message | Andrey Lepikhov | 2018-11-04 03:52:35 | Re: Making all nbtree entries unique by having heap TIDs participate in comparisons |