Re: HOT pgbench results

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Heikki Linnakangas
Тема Re: HOT pgbench results
Дата
Msg-id 46B8844C.2050506@enterprisedb.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: HOT pgbench results  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: HOT pgbench results
Re: HOT pgbench results
Список pgsql-hackers
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.

--  Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com


В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: More logging for autovacuum
Следующее
От: "Matthew T. O'Connor"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: More logging for autovacuum