On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 12:30 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
Well, it is really a question of how often you want to do a second WARM update (not possible) vs. the frequency of lazy vacuum. I assumed that would be a 100X or 10kX difference, but I am not sure myself either. My initial guess was that only allowing a single WARM update between lazy vacuums would show no improvementin in real-world workloads, but maybe I am wrong.
It's quite hard to say that until we see many more benchmarks. As author of the patch, I might have got repetitive with my benchmarks. But I've seen over 50% improvement in TPS even without chain conversion (6 indexes on a 12 column table test).
With chain conversion, in my latest tests, I saw over 100% improvement. The benchmark probably received between 6-8 autovac cycles in an 8hr test. This was with a large table which doesn't fit in memory or barely fit in memory. Graphs attached again just in case you missed (x-axis test duration in seconds, y-axis moving average of TPS)
May be we should run another set with just 2 or 3 indexes on a 12 column table and see how much that helps, if at all. Or may be do a mix of HOT and WARM updates. Or even just do HOT updates on small and large tables and look for any regression. Will try to schedule some of those tests.
Чтобы сделать работу с сайтом удобнее, мы используем cookie и аналитический сервис «Яндекс.Метрика». Продолжая пользоваться сайтом, вы соглашаетесь с их использованием.