On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 6:58 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> In buffer fill mode, we scan the index and add matching tuples and
>> their CTIDs to the buffer. When the buffer is full or the index AM
>> reports that there are no more tuples in the sca
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> In buffer fill mode, we scan the index and add matching tuples and
> their CTIDs to the buffer. When the buffer is full or the index AM
> reports that there are no more tuples in the scan, we switch to buffer
> drain mode.
Instead you could d
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Thom Brown wrote:
> While I accept that maybe adapting the existing bitmap index scan
> functionality isn't necessarily desirable, would it be feasible to
> create a corresponding bitmap index-only scan method.
I've been thinking about this a bit more; I wonder w
On 19 November 2011 16:08, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thom Brown writes:
>> So is there a chance of getting bitmap index-only scans?
>
> Don't hold your breath. It seems like a huge increment of complexity
> for probably very marginal gains. The point of a bitmap scan (as
> opposed to regular indexscan)
Thom Brown writes:
> So is there a chance of getting bitmap index-only scans?
Don't hold your breath. It seems like a huge increment of complexity
for probably very marginal gains. The point of a bitmap scan (as
opposed to regular indexscan) is to reduce heap accesses by combining
visits to the
On 12 October 2011 17:26, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The place where the decision is actually somewhat hard, IMO, is where
>> you're pulling a small part of the table but significantly more than one
>> row, and the traditional best choice would be a
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 9:48 PM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
>> Jeff Janes wrote:
>> Kevin Grittner wrote:
>
>>> create table t (id int not null primary key);
>>> insert into t select generate_series(1, 100);
>>> vacuum freeze analyze;
>>> explain analyze select count(*) from t
>>> where id betwee
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 03:16:54PM +0100, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > I think it's overkill, and possibly unpleasantly unstable as well.
> > For the initial attack on this we should just have VACUUM and ANALYZE
> > count the number of all-visible blocks
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 11:59 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> I'm not concerned about an index scan vs. a sequential scan here. I'm
>> concerned about it being impossible for the DBA to get an index-only
>> scan when s/he wants it very badly. The current (stupid) formula
>> handles
Robert Haas writes:
> I'm not concerned about an index scan vs. a sequential scan here. I'm
> concerned about it being impossible for the DBA to get an index-only
> scan when s/he wants it very badly. The current (stupid) formula
> handles this case just about perfectly - it will prefer a smalle
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> What bothers me considerably more is the issue about how specific
>>> queries might see an all-visible fraction that's very substantially
>>> different from the table's
Aidan Van Dyk writes:
> The elephant in the room is that the index-only-scan really doesn't
> save a *whole* lot if the heap pages are already in shared buffers.
> But it matters a *lot* when they heap pages are not in shared buffers
> (both ways, saving IO, or causing lots of random IO)
> Can we
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
>> But it matters a *lot* when they heap pages are not in shared
>> buffers
>
> Yeah, obviously it matters more if you actually need to add a random
> disk read.
To be fair the indexes are also random I/O. So the case that really
matters is w
Aidan Van Dyk wrote:
> The elephant in the room is that the index-only-scan really
> doesn't save a *whole* lot if the heap pages are already in shared
> buffers.
It's not hard to create a simple test case where it's about three
times slower to go to cached heap pages than to use the values fr
Greg Stark writes:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The problem is precisely that the pages a query is going to read are
>> likely to *not* be a random sample, but to be correlated with
>> recently-dirtied pages.
> Sure, but I was suggesting aiming for the nth percentile rat
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 3:29 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> What I suggest as a first cut for that is: simply derate the visibility
>>> fraction as the fraction
>>> of the table expected to be scanned gets smaller.
>
>> I think there's a statistically more rigorous way of accomplishing the
>> same thing
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> - Suppose the table has a million rows and we're going to read 100 of
>> them, or 0.01%. Now it might appear that a covering index has a
>> negligible advantage over a non-covering index, but in fact I think we
>> still want to err on the side
Robert Haas writes:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> What bothers me considerably more is the issue about how specific
>> queries might see an all-visible fraction that's very substantially
>> different from the table's overall ratio,
> - Suppose VACUUM processes the table a
Greg Stark writes:
> Assuming you're in a steady-state situation the amount of all-visible
> blocks will fluctuate from a high just after vacuum to a low just
> before the next vacuum. There are other ways a block can be marked
> all-visible but for the most part I would expect the fraction to go
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> What bothers me considerably more is the issue about how specific
> queries might see an all-visible fraction that's very substantially
> different from the table's overall ratio, especially in examples such as
> historical-data tables where most
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I think it's overkill, and possibly unpleasantly unstable as well.
> For the initial attack on this we should just have VACUUM and ANALYZE
> count the number of all-visible blocks and store that in pg_class along
> with the tuple-count statistics.
Robert Haas writes:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Jeff Davis wrote:
>> On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 13:22 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> The real issue is that the costing estimates need to be accurate, and
>>> that's where the rubber hits the road.
>> Can you send stats messages to keep track when
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Jeff Davis wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 13:22 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> The real issue is that the costing estimates need to be accurate, and
>> that's where the rubber hits the road. Otherwise, even if we pick the
>> right way to scan the table, we may do si
On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 13:22 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> The real issue is that the costing estimates need to be accurate, and
> that's where the rubber hits the road. Otherwise, even if we pick the
> right way to scan the table, we may do silly things up the line when
> we go to start constructing
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> The trouble is that if we VACUUM and then ANALYZE, we'll often get
>> back a value very close to 100%, but then the real value may diminish
>> quite a bit before the next auto-analyze fires. I think if we can
>> figure out what to do about
> The trouble is that if we VACUUM and then ANALYZE, we'll often get
> back a value very close to 100%, but then the real value may diminish
> quite a bit before the next auto-analyze fires. I think if we can
> figure out what to do about that problem we'll be well on our way...
It's not so much
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 5:45 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> My intention was to allow it to consider any covering index. You're
>> thinking about the cost estimate, which is really entirely different.
>>
>
> Is there any reason to consider more than o
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Greg Stark wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> > My intention was to allow it to consider any covering index. ?You're
>> > thinking about the cost estimate, which is really entirely different.
>> >
>>
>> Is there a
Greg Stark wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > My intention was to allow it to consider any covering index. ?You're
> > thinking about the cost estimate, which is really entirely different.
> >
>
> Is there any reason to consider more than one? I would have expected
> th
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Cédric Villemain
wrote:
> 2011/10/10 Robert Haas :
>> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Kevin Grittner
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> That gives you an index-only scan; but without the WHERE clause it
>>> uses a seq scan. I think it's mainly a matter of doing enough
>>> benchm
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> Right now, our costing model for index-only scans is pretty dumb.
>> It assumes that using an index-only scan will avoid 10% of the
>> heap fetches. That could easily be low, and on an insert-only
>> table or one wh
>> Jeff Janes wrote:
>> Kevin Grittner wrote:
>
>>> create table t (id int not null primary key);
>>> insert into t select generate_series(1, 100);
>>> vacuum freeze analyze;
>>> explain analyze select count(*) from t
>>> where id between 50 and 500010;
>>>
>>> That gives you an index-onl
> Jeff Janes wrote:
> Kevin Grittner wrote:
>> create table t (id int not null primary key);
>> insert into t select generate_series(1, 100);
>> vacuum freeze analyze;
>> explain analyze select count(*) from t
>> where id between 50 and 500010;
>>
>> That gives you an index-only scan; b
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> My intention was to allow it to consider any covering index. You're
> thinking about the cost estimate, which is really entirely different.
>
Is there any reason to consider more than one? I would have expected
the narrowest one to be the best c
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> I talked to Robert Haas and he said that index-only scans do not
>> optimize COUNT(*). Is this something we can do for PG 9.2? Is
>> anyone working on this?
>
> Well, it's not that it doesn't optimize COUNT(*) --
"Kevin Grittner" writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think what Robert is complaining about is that we won't
>> currently consider an index that matches neither any WHERE clauses
>> nor ORDER BY, ie, count(*) over the whole table won't get
>> considered for an index-only scan, regardless of cost estim
Tom Lane wrote:
> I think what Robert is complaining about is that we won't
> currently consider an index that matches neither any WHERE clauses
> nor ORDER BY, ie, count(*) over the whole table won't get
> considered for an index-only scan, regardless of cost estimates.
I guess the trick woul
2011/10/10 Robert Haas :
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Kevin Grittner
> wrote:
>>
>> That gives you an index-only scan; but without the WHERE clause it
>> uses a seq scan. I think it's mainly a matter of doing enough
>> benchmarks to figure out how best to model the costs of the index
>> sca
Robert Haas wrote:
> Right now, our costing model for index-only scans is pretty dumb.
> It assumes that using an index-only scan will avoid 10% of the
> heap fetches. That could easily be low, and on an insert-only
> table or one where only the recently-updated rows are routinely
> accessed,
"Kevin Grittner" writes:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> I talked to Robert Haas and he said that index-only scans do not
>> optimize COUNT(*). Is this something we can do for PG 9.2? Is
>> anyone working on this?
> Well, it's not that it doesn't optimize COUNT(*) -- it's that it
> doesn't yet cost
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Kevin Grittner
wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> I talked to Robert Haas and he said that index-only scans do not
>> optimize COUNT(*). Is this something we can do for PG 9.2? Is
>> anyone working on this?
>
> Well, it's not that it doesn't optimize COUNT(*) -- i
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I talked to Robert Haas and he said that index-only scans do not
> optimize COUNT(*). Is this something we can do for PG 9.2? Is
> anyone working on this?
Well, it's not that it doesn't optimize COUNT(*) -- it's that it
doesn't yet cost the index scan as cheaper than a t
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I talked to Robert Haas and he said that index-only scans do not
> optimize COUNT(*). Is this something we can do for PG 9.2? Is anyone
> working on this?
People usually conflate multiple problems when they talk about
"count(*). The usual
On 10 October 2011 18:23, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I talked to Robert Haas and he said that index-only scans do not
> optimize COUNT(*). Is this something we can do for PG 9.2? Is anyone
> working on this?
Yes it does, provided that there is an appropriate WHERE clause. But
yes, I think we defin
I talked to Robert Haas and he said that index-only scans do not
optimize COUNT(*). Is this something we can do for PG 9.2? Is anyone
working on this?
--
Bruce Momjian http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everyt
45 matches
Mail list logo
