Re: mosbench revisited
От
Robert Haas
Тема
Re: mosbench revisited
Дата
Msg-id
CA+TgmoZi262u_mX3DPt9bRDvMyn3_Wky5NNpE9JR+ky-7icHYw@mail.gmail.com
Ответ на
Re: mosbench revisited (Tom Lane)
Список
Дерево обсуждения
mosbench revisited Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: mosbench revisited Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>
Re: mosbench revisited Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: mosbench revisited Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: mosbench revisited Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: mosbench revisited Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: mosbench revisited Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: mosbench revisited Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: mosbench revisited Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: mosbench revisited Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: mosbench revisited Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: mosbench revisited Aidan Van Dyk <aidan@highrise.ca>
Re: mosbench revisited Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: mosbench revisited Greg Stark <stark@mit.edu>
Re: mosbench revisited Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: mosbench revisited Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>
Re: mosbench revisited Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: mosbench revisited Jim Nasby <jim@nasby.net>
Re: mosbench revisited Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: mosbench revisited Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>
Re: mosbench revisited Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: mosbench revisited Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: mosbench revisited Dimitri Fontaine <dimitri@2ndQuadrant.fr>
Re: mosbench revisited Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: mosbench revisited Jesper Krogh <jesper@krogh.cc>
Re: mosbench revisited Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine@hi-media.com>
Re: mosbench revisited Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Re: mosbench revisited Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
Re: mosbench revisited Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Robert Haas writes: >> On a straight pgbench -S test, you get four system calls per query: >> recvfrom(), lseek(), lseek(), sendto(). Adding -M prepared eliminates >> the two lseeks. > > [ scratches head... ] Two? Yep. > Is that one for the table and one for its > lone index, or are we being redundant there? The former. Specifically, it appears we're smart enough to only test the last segment (in this case, the table is large enough that there is a .1 file, and that's what we're lseeking). > (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. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления