> From: Fujii Masao [mailto:masao.fu...@gmail.com]
> This is what I'm looking for! This feature is really useful for tuning
work_mem
> when using full text search with pg_trgm.
>
> I'm not sure if it's good idea to show the number of the fetches because it
> seems difficult to tune work_mem from that number. How can we calculate how
> much to increase work_mem to avoid lossy bitmap from the number of the fetches
> in EXPLAIN output?
We can calculate that from the following equation in tbm_create():
nbuckets = maxbytes /
(MAXALIGN(sizeof(HASHELEMENT)) + MAXALIGN(sizeof(PagetableEntry))
+ sizeof(Pointer) + sizeof(Pointer)),
where maxbytes is the size of memory used for the hashtable in a TIDBitmap,
designated by work_mem, and nbuckets is the estimated number of hashtable
entries we can have within maxbytes. From this, the size of work_mem within
which we can have every hashtable entry as an exact bitmap is calculated as
follows:
work_mem = (the number of exact pages + the number of lossy pages) *
(MAXALIGN(sizeof(HASHELEMENT)) + MAXALIGN(sizeof(PagetableEntry))
+ sizeof(Pointer) + sizeof(Pointer)) /
(1024 * 1024).
I'll show you an example. The following is the result for work_mem = 1MB:
> > postgres=# EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT * FROM demo WHERE col2 between 0.01 and
> 0.02;
> > QUERY PLAN
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------
> > ------------------------------------------------
> > Bitmap Heap Scan on demo (cost=2716.54..92075.46 rows=105766
> > width=34) (actual
> > time=24.907..1119.961 rows=100047 loops=1)
> > Recheck Cond: ((col2 >= 0.01::double precision) AND (col2 <=
> > 0.02::double
> > precision))
> > Rows Removed by Index Recheck: 5484114
> > Heap Blocks: exact=11975 lossy=46388
> > -> Bitmap Index Scan on demo_idx (cost=0.00..2690.09 rows=105766
> > width=0) (actual time=22.821..22.821 rows=100047 loops=1)
> > Index Cond: ((col2 >= 0.01::double precision) AND (col2 <=
> > 0.02::double
> > precision))
> > Total runtime: 1129.334 ms
> > (7 rows)
So, by setting work_mem to
work_mem = (11975 + 46388) *
(MAXALIGN(sizeof(HASHELEMENT)) + MAXALIGN(sizeof(PagetableEntry))
+ sizeof(Pointer) + sizeof(Pointer)) /
(1024 * 1024),
which is about 5MB, we have the following (Note that no lossy heap pages!):
postgres=# EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT * FROM demo WHERE col2 between 0.01 and 0.02;
QUERY PLAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------
--------------------
Bitmap Heap Scan on demo (cost=2716.54..92075.46 rows=105766 width=34) (actual
time=42.981..120.252 rows=1
00047 loops=1)
Recheck Cond: ((col2 >= 0.01::double precision) AND (col2 <= 0.02::double
precision))
Heap Blocks: exact=58363
-> Bitmap Index Scan on demo_idx (cost=0.00..2690.09 rows=105766 width=0)
(actual time=26.023..26.023 r
ows=100047 loops=1)
Index Cond: ((col2 >= 0.01::double precision) AND (col2 <= 0.02::double
precision))
Total runtime: 129.304 ms
(6 rows)
BTW, as the EXPLAIN ANALYZE output, the number of exact/lossy heap pages would
be fine with me.
> Anyway, could you add the patch into next CF?
Done.
Thanks,
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
