> "Jan de Visser" <jdevisser@digitalfairway.com> writes:
> > Obviously, this issue is tied to the slow count(*) one, as I found out
> > the hard way. Consider the following scenario:
> > * Insert row
> > * Update that row a couple of times
> > * Rinse and repeat many times
> >
> > Now somewhere during that cycle, do a select count(*) just to see
> > where you are. You will be appalled by how slow that is, due to not
> > only the usual 'slow count(*)' reasons. This whole hint bit business
> > makes it even worse, as demonstrated by the fact that running a vacuum
> > before the count(*) makes the latter noticably faster.
>
> Uh, well, you can't blame that entirely on hint-bit updates. The vacuum
> has simply *removed* two-thirds of the rows in the system, resulting in
> a large drop in the number of rows that the select even has to look at.
>
> It's certainly true that hint-bit updates cost something, but
> quantifying how much isn't easy. The off-the-cuff answer is to do the
> select count(*) twice and see how much cheaper the second one is. But
> there are two big holes in that answer: the first is the possible cache
> effects from having already read in the pages, and the second is that
> the follow-up scan gets to avoid the visits to pg_clog that the first
> scan had to make (which after all is the point of the hint bits).
>
> I don't know any easy way to disambiguate the three effects that are at
> work here. But blaming it all on the costs of writing out hint-bit
> updates is wrong.
>
> regards, tom lane
True. But it still contributes to the fact that queries sometimes behave in a
non-deterministic way, which IMHO is the major annoyance when starting to
work with pgsql. And contrary to other causes (vacuum, checkpoints) this is
woefully underdocumented.
jan
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
No comments:
Post a Comment