Re: mosbench revisited

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: mosbench revisited
Дата
Msg-id 23078.1312403896@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: mosbench revisited  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: mosbench revisited  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> (If the query ended up being a seqscan, I'd expect a second
>> lseek(SEEK_END) when the executor starts up, but I gather from the other
>> complaints that the mosbench people were only testing simple indexscan
>> queries.)

> Yeah, it seems that for a sequential scan we lseek the heap, then the
> index, then the heap again; but for index scans we just hit the heap
> and the index.

Sure.  The first two come from the planner getting the table and index
sizes for estimation purposes (look in plancat.c).  The last is done in
heapam.c's initscan().  We could possibly accept stale values for the
planner estimates, but I think heapam's number had better be accurate.
        regards, tom lane


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: mosbench revisited
Следующее
От: Simon Riggs
Дата:
Сообщение: Locking end of indexes during VACUUM