From: | Amit Khandekar <amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Result Cache node shows per-worker info even for workers not launched |
Date: | 2021-04-28 10:41:58 |
Message-ID: | CAJ3gD9d_ZqercSJQKF6rKz+5huxUBhrYFsXNxyZ5158GY7F+5w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 28 Apr 2021 at 15:08, Bharath Rupireddy
<bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 1:54 PM David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > I plan to push this in the next 24 hours or so.
>
> I happen to see explain_resultcache in resultcache.sql, seems like two
> of the tests still have numbers for cache hits and misses - Hits: 980
> Misses: 20, won't these make tests unstable? Will these numbers be
> same across machines? Or is it that no buildfarm had caught these? The
> comment below says that, the hits and misses are not same across
> machines:
> -- Ensure we get some evictions. We're unable to validate the hits and misses
> -- here as the number of entries that fit in the cache at once will vary
> -- between different machines.
>
> Should we remove the hide_hitmiss parameter in explain_resultcache and
> always print N for non-zero and Zero for 0 hits and misses? This
> clearly shows that we have 0 or non-zero hits or misses.
>
> Am I missing something?
I believe, the assumption here is that with no workers involved, it is
guaranteed to have the exact same cache misses and hits anywhere.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2021-04-28 10:43:44 | Re: Result Cache node shows per-worker info even for workers not launched |
Previous Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2021-04-28 10:27:41 | Re: Some oversights in query_id calculation |