From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Set visibility map bit after HOT prune |
Date: | 2012-12-21 02:24:00 |
Message-ID: | CAMkU=1xYTKNxG7jY9rJCzq+JWO7VgbC55EJzXks_Q-Vf5xQxKg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wednesday, December 19, 2012, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Pavan Deolasee
> <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com <javascript:;>> wrote:
>
> > I would like to run some pgbench tests where we get the system in a
> > steady state such as all/most updates are HOT updates (not entirely
> > unlikely scenario for many real life cases). And then try running some
> > concurrent queries which can be executed via IOS. My gut feel is that,
> > today we will see slow and continuous drop in performance for these
> > queries because IOS will slowly stop working.
>
> If there are no vacuums, I agree.
>
If the table is randomly updated over its entire size, then pretty much
every block will be not-all-visible (and so disqualified from IOS) before
you hit the default 20% vacuum threshold. I wonder if there ought not be
another vac threshold, based on vm density rather than estimated obsolete
tuple density.
Cheers,
Jeff
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2012-12-21 03:30:35 | Set visibility map bit after HOT prune |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-12-20 23:59:18 | Re: Review of Row Level Security |