Re: HOT pgbench results

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Simon Riggs
Тема Re: HOT pgbench results
Дата
Msg-id 1186514113.4192.47.camel@ebony.site
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: HOT pgbench results  (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 15:40 +0100, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> >>         unpatched    HOT    
> >> autovacuums    116        43
> >> autoanalyzes    139        60
> > 
> >> HOT greatly reduces the number of vacuums needed. That's good, that's
> >> where the gains in throughput in longer I/O bound runs comes from.
> > 
> > But surely failing to auto-analyze after a HOT update is a bad thing.
> 
> Hmm, I suppose. I don't think we've spend any time thinking about how to
> factor in HOT updates into the autovacuum and autoanalyze formulas yet.

> I'd argue that HOT updates are not as significant as cold ones from
> statistics point of view, though, because they don't change indexed
> columns. HOT-updated fields are not likely used as primary search quals.

I agree with that thought, but the changes to unindexed fields are just
as important for selectivity calculations so we should ANALYZE just as
frequently. ANALYZE is cheap, so we aren't saving anything by avoiding
them.

--  Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB  http://www.enterprisedb.com



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Gregory Stark
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [GENERAL] Template zero xid issue
Следующее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: HOT patch, missing things