On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Alexander Kuzmenkov
<a.kuzmenkov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>
>> Analysis: The estimated value of the lossy_pages is way higher than
>> its actual value and reason is that the total_pages calculated by the
>> "Mackert and Lohman formula" is not correct.
>
>
> I think the problem might be that the total_pages includes cache effects and
> rescans. For bitmap entries we should use something like relation pages *
> selectivity.
I have noticed that for the TPCH case if I use "pages * selectivity"
it give me better results, but IMHO directly multiplying the pages
with selectivity may not be the correct way to calculate the number of
heap pages it can only give the correct result when all the TID being
fetched are clustered. But on the other hand "Mackert and Lohman
formula" formulae consider that all the TID's are evenly distributed
across the heap pages which can also give the wrong estimation like we
are seeing in our TPCH case.
>
> Meanwhile, I ran TPC-H briefly with the v3 patch: scale factor 25, 2
> workers, SSD storage.
> It shows significant improvement on 4MB work_mem and no change on 2GB.
>
> Here are the results (execution time in seconds, average of 5 runs):
> work_mem 4MB 2GB
> Query master patch master patch
> 4 179 174 168 167
> 5 190 168 155 156
> 6 280 87 227 229
> 8 197 114 179 172
> 10 269 227 190 192
> 14 110 108 106 105
>
Thanks for the testing number looks good to me.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers