From: | Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Warm-up cache may have its virtue |
Date: | 2006-01-07 08:02:57 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.58.0601070259470.12261@eon.cs |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 7 Jan 2006, Greg Stark wrote:
>
> "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu> writes:
>
> > For b1, it actually doesn't matter much though. With bitmap we definitely
> > can give a better EXPLAIN numbers for seqscan only, but without the bitmap,
> > we seldom make wrong choice of choosing/not choosing sequential scan.
>
> I think you have a more severe problem than that.
>
> It's not sequential scans that we have trouble estimating.
> It's the index scans that are the problem.
Exactly, we are saying the same thing.
>
> In other words, the difference between being in Postgres's buffer cache and
> being in the filesystem cache, while not insignificant, isn't really relevant
> to the planner since it affects sequential scans and index scans equally.
The bitmap was proposed since I think it is time to use dominated
shared_buffer size. Thus, if it is not in buffer cache, it is not in OS
cache either.
Regards,
Qingqing
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Marko Kreen | 2006-01-07 10:52:41 | Re: [HACKERS] Inconsistent syntax in GRANT |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2006-01-07 07:52:43 | Re: Warm-up cache may have its virtue |