Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Well, it reinforces my opinion that it's experimental ;-). But "first
>> run" of what, exactly?
> See the test case in my OP. The "runs" in question are "select sum(1) from
> s".
>> And are you sure you're taking a wholistic view
>> of the costs/benefits?
> No.
Well, IMO it would be a catastrophic mistake to evaluate a patch like
this on the basis of any single test case, let alone one as simplistic
as that. I would observe in particular that your test case creates a
table containing only one distinct value of xmin, which means that the
single-transaction cache in transam.c is 100% effective, which doesn't
seem to me to be a very realistic test condition. I think this is
vastly understating the cost of missing hint bits.
So what it needs now is a lot more testing. pg_bench might be worth
trying if you want something with minimal development effort, though
I'm not sure if its clog access pattern is particularly realistic
either.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
