Re: [PERFORM] encouraging index-only scans

On 9/17/13 6:10 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> What if we maintained XID stats for ranges of pages in a separate
>> >fork? Call it the XidStats fork. Presumably the interesting pieces
>> >would be min(xmin) and max(xmax) for pages that aren't all visible. If
>> >we did that at a granularity of, say, 1MB worth of pages[1] we're
>> >talking 8 bytes per MB, or 1 XidStats page per GB of heap. (Worst case
>> >alignment bumps that up to 2 XidStats pages per GB of heap.)

> Yes, I have thought about similar ideas as well, but I came to the
> conclusion that it's not worth it. If you want to make the boundaries
> precise and the xidstats fork small, you're introducing new contention
> points because every DML will need to make sure it's correct.

Actually, that's not true... the XidStats only need to be "relatively" precise. IE: within a few hundred or thousand
XIDs.

So for example, you'd only need to attempt an update if the XID already stored was more than a few
hundred/thousand/whateverXIDs away from your XID. If it's any closer don't even bother to update.
 

That still leaves potential for thundering herd on the fork buffer lock if you've got a ton of DML on one table across
abunch of backends, but there might be other ways around that. For example, if you know you can update the XID with a
CPU-atomicinstruction, you don't need to lock the page.
 

> Also, the amount of code that would require seems to be bigger than
> justified by the increase of precision when to vacuum.

That's very possibly true. I haven't had a chance to see how much VM bits help reduce vacuum overhead yet, so I don't
haveanything to add on this front. Perhaps others might.
 
-- 
Jim C. Nasby, Data Architect                       jim@nasby.net
512.569.9461 (cell)                         http://jim.nasby.net