Re: ANALYZE sampling is too good
От | Mark Kirkwood |
---|---|
Тема | Re: ANALYZE sampling is too good |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 52A665FF.1060500@catalyst.net.nz обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: ANALYZE sampling is too good (Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz>) |
Ответы |
Re: ANALYZE sampling is too good
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/12/13 13:20, Mark Kirkwood wrote: > On 10/12/13 13:14, Mark Kirkwood wrote: >> On 10/12/13 12:14, Heikki Linnakangas wrote: >>> >>> >>> I took a stab at using posix_fadvise() in ANALYZE. It turned out to >>> be very easy, patch attached. Your mileage may vary, but I'm seeing >>> a nice gain from this on my laptop. Taking a 30000 page sample of a >>> table with 717717 pages (ie. slightly larger than RAM), ANALYZE >>> takes about 6 seconds without the patch, and less than a second with >>> the patch, with effective_io_concurrency=10. If anyone with a good >>> test data set loaded would like to test this and post some numbers, >>> that would be great. >>> >>> >> >> >> >> I did a test run: >> >> pgbench scale 2000 (pgbench_accounts approx 25GB). >> postgres 9.4 >> >> i7 3.5Ghz Cpu >> 16GB Ram >> 500 GB Velociraptor 10K >> >> (cold os and pg cache both runs) >> Without patch: ANALYZE pgbench_accounts 90s >> With patch: ANALYZE pgbench_accounts 91s >> >> So I'm essentially seeing no difference :-( > > > Arrg - sorry forgot the important bits: > > Ubuntu 13.10 (kernel 3.11.0-14) > filesystem is ext4 > > > Doing the same test as above, but on a 80GB Intel 520 (ext4 filesystem mounted with discard): (cold os and pg cache both runs) Without patch: ANALYZE pgbench_accounts 5s With patch: ANALYZE pgbench_accounts 5s
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: