Re: Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE
От | Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 002901c1e9f5$1258e6c0$cab990c1@atc.unican.es обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
I will use this thread to throw a question I threw time ago but was unresolved, I think it is very close with this thread, cause we can't talk about indexes and seqscans without talk about indexes performance, I've to apologize if someone thinks that it's off-topic. Index usage has a big contention problem when running on large SMP boxes, here are the results from running on an 8 r10000 200MHz, I've sized the database in order to be 100% cachable by OS in order to compare memory performance with seq_scan an index_scan, lately I've reduced random_page_cost first to 0.5 and finally to 0.1 to force postgres to use indexes, in both executions 1 only stream(on left in the graph) is faster than in random_page_cost=4, but more than one stream results in high contention rate. These are results from tpc-h(1 first stream of 22 queries followed for s parallel streams of same queries other order with refresh functions in progress) Orange shows CPU waiting for resources, what means stopped at a sem(it's odd because all queries are read-only). first of all is rpg=4(less time 8 streams than first(no loads)), second=0.5(about twice the parallel than first stream) third=0.1(five times parallel than first stream). I've marked where the first stream ends and starts the parallel test.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: