Re: 8.3devel slower than 8.2 under read-only load
От | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Тема | Re: 8.3devel slower than 8.2 under read-only load |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 200711270039.lAR0dHl08987@momjian.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: 8.3devel slower than 8.2 under read-only load (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > But I think there must be an action that we can take for 8.3 and that > > much runtime should not be given away easily. ISTM that we can win back > > the losses Guillaume has identified, plus gain a little more even. > > Perhaps some sanity could be restored to this discussion by pointing out > that the 2007-01-01 code *also* clocks in at 37% spent in > oper_select_candidate. IOW it's been like this for a very long time. > I'm not interested in destabilizing 8.3 with panicky last-minute patches. > > > So how about we have a cache-of-one: > > Cache-of-one has exactly the same difficulty as cache-of-many, other > than the table lookup itself, which is a solved problem (hashtable). > You still have to determine how you identify the cached value and what > events require a cache flush. Nor do I see any particular reason to > assume that a cache of only one operator would be of any use for > real-world apps, as opposed to toy examples. Seems like anytime a function like that takes 37%, there is something wrong. Are we sure there isn't a bug in there somewhere? As far as a cache, could we create a simple cache that remembered the last X lookups and cleared the cache anytime a cache invalidation message came in? -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: