Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Including Snapshot Info with Indexes
I have added URLs to your patch to the TODO list: * Allow data to be pulled directly from indexes --- Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote: > Hi, > I would like to present the first patch. It currently has the following > restrictions > a) It does not support any functional indexes. > b) It supports queries like select count(1) from table where (restrictions > from indexed columns), but it does not support select count(1) from table. > > The Syntax to create this type of index is > > create thick index idx on dd(n1,n2) > > here idx- index name and dd- table name and n1 and n2 are column names. > > I have created a extra column in pg_index called indhassnapshot. > > I have also enabled the display of Logical Reads. In order to see that, set > log_statement_stats on. > > The thick index is clearly on the front, if you issue queries like > > select n2 from dd where n1>1000 and n2<1500; > > As already said, if the update is not incurring any extra cost, except if > the indexed columns are updated. Deletes are costly, making it ideal for > partitioned tables. > > In order to update the thick indexes, i have accessed the ps_ExprContext in > PlanState to get the oldtuple. But if we have a outer plan and inner plan, > then i have set the ps_ExprContext of innerplan to the outerplan. I don't > know whether there will be instances where the ps_ExprContext of outerplan > node will have some use in update queries. > > Right now, it passes the regression test suite. I had slight trouble with > pg_indent, so i think it has not got applied properly. But i have tried to > remove all the whitespace differences. Please be kind to me in case i have > missed any whitespace differences. :) > > Please review the patch and provide your comments. > > Thanks, > Gokul. > CertoSQL Project, > Allied Solution Groups. > (www.alliedgroups.com) > > On 10/23/07, Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > ?hel kenal p?eval, L, 2007-10-20 kell 10:19, kirjutas Luke Lonergan: > > > Hi Hannu, > > > > > > On 10/14/07 12:58 AM, "Hannu Krosing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > What has happened in reality, is that the speed difference between > > CPU, > > > > RAM and disk speeds has _increased_ tremendously > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > which makes it even > > > > more important to _decrease_ the size of stored data if you want good > > > > performance > > > > > > Or bring the cpu processing closer to the data it's using (or both). > > > > > > By default, the trend you mention first will continue in an unending way > > - > > > the consequence is that the "distance" between a processor and it's > > target > > > data will continue to increase ad-infinitum. > > > > the emergence of solid-state (flash) disks may help a little here, but > > in general it is true. > > > > > By contrast, you can only decrease the data volume so much - so in the > > end > > > you'll be left with the same problem - the data needs to be closer to > > the > > > processing. This is the essence of parallel / shared nothing > > architecture. > > > > > > Note that we've done this at Greenplum. We're also implementing a > > DSM-like > > > capability and are investigating a couple of different hybrid row / > > column > > > store approaches. > > > > Have you tried moving the whole visibility part of tuples out to a > > separate heap ? > > > > Especially in OLAP/ETL scenarios the distribution of tuples loaded in > > one transaction should be very good for visibility-info compression. > > > > I'd suspect that you could crush hundreds of pages worth of visibility > > into single RLE encoding unit (xmin=N, xmax=no_yet, start_ctid = X, > > end_ctid=Y), and it will stay in L1 cache most of the time you process > > the corresponding relation. and the relation itself will be smaller, and > > index-only (actually index-only + lookup inside L1 cache) access can > > happen, and so on . > > > > OTOH, if you load it in millions of small transactions, you can run > > VACUUM FREEZE _on_ the visibility heap only, which will make all > > visibility infoe look similar and thus RLE-compressable and again make > > it fit in L1 cache, if you dont have lots of failed loads interleaved > > with successful ones. > > > > > Bitmap index with index-only access does provide nearly all of the > > > advantages of a column store from a speed standpoint BTW. Even though > > > Vertica is touting speed advantages - our parallel engine plus bitmap > > index > > > will crush them in benchmarks when they show up with real code. > > > > > > Meanwhile they're moving on to new ideas - I kid you not "Horizontica" > > is > > > Dr. Stonebraker's new idea :-) > > > > Sounds like a result of a marketroid brainstorming session :P > > > > > So - bottom line - some ideas from column store make sense, but it's not > > a > > > cure-all. > > > > > > > There is also a MonetDB/X100 project, which tries to make MonetOD >
Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Including Snapshot Info with Indexes
On Jan 28, 2008 8:21 AM, Gokulakannan Somasundaram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am not seeing my mail getting listed in the archives. So i am just > resending it, in case the above one has got missed. It was sent. Archive processing is delayed. -- Jonah H. Harris, Sr. Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324 EnterpriseDB Corporation| fax: 732.331.1301 499 Thornall Street, 2nd Floor | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Edison, NJ 08837| http://www.enterprisedb.com/ ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Including Snapshot Info with Indexes
On 10/28/07, Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ühel kenal päeval, R, 2007-10-26 kell 16:46, kirjutas Gokulakannan > Somasundaram: > > What does the numbers look like if the the tables are small > > enough to > > fit in RAM? > > > > I don't know whether this is a valid production setup, against which > > we need to benchmark. > > Often the production setup may have at least most of indexes in RAM, if > not the whole data. My test happened to be something where the base folder size was less than RAM. So this test case has been covered, although without my intention. Thanks, Gokul. -- > Hannu > > > > -- Thanks, Gokul. CertoSQL Project, Allied Solution Groups. (www.alliedgroups.com)
Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Including Snapshot Info with Indexes
Ühel kenal päeval, R, 2007-10-26 kell 16:46, kirjutas Gokulakannan Somasundaram: > What does the numbers look like if the the tables are small > enough to > fit in RAM? > > I don't know whether this is a valid production setup, against which > we need to benchmark. Often the production setup may have at least most of indexes in RAM, if not the whole data. -- Hannu ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Including Snapshot Info with Indexes
On 10/26/07, Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote: > > On 10/26/07, Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote: > >>> As far as Load Test is concerned, i have tried to provide all the > >> relevant > >>> details. Please inform me, if i have left any. > >> Thanks! > >> > >> How large were the tables? > > > > It is in the Performance test report. They contain 2 million > records. 6 > > columns wide, 3 text and 3 numeric. same set of tables used for both > tests, > > after refresh from a file > > I meant in megabytes. How wide is the data in the text and numeric fields? I have observed the size of PGDATA\base folder for size details Size of Tables : 367 MB Size of Tables + thin indexes : 616 MB Size of Tables + thick indexes : 720 MB The numbers were simply running between 1 and 2 million in a serial fashion. I think i made a mistake here. this would have helped thin indexes in range scans, since the data is clustered at the table, the bitmap heap scan would have been more effective. So i hope thick indexes will be more effective, if uncluster the data, since the thin index has to goto more table buffers. The test columns are approx 10 characters in length. > Did you run all the queries concurrently? At this point, I think it'd be > >> better to run them separately so that you can look at the impact on > each > >> kind of operation in isolation. > >> > > Performance tests are run against a workload and i have taken the > workload > > of a small scale partitioning setup. Running the queries individually > has > > already been done and the count of logical reads have been verified. I > have > > already suggested that. For some reason, i am not able to convince that > for > > simple index scans, Logical reads are a good measure of performance. > > I wouldn't expect any performance gain for simple, not index-only, > scans. They have to hit the heap anyway. I just feel the above test didn't do much I/Os and yet the index only scans are faster with thick indexes. since the size of RAM is 1GB and the size of the data is only 616MB, i hope most of them might have been OS cached. May be i am missing something here. > What does the numbers look like if the the tables are small enough to > >> fit in RAM? > > > > I don't know whether this is a valid production setup, against which we > need > > to benchmark. But if you insist, i will do that and get back to you next > > time. > > A lot of people run databases that fit in RAM. And a lot of people > don't. Both cases are interesting. I'm particularly curious about that > because you've argued that the number of logical reads is important, > even if they don't become physical reads. Hannu also suggested that > swapping pages in/out of shared_buffers is relatively expensive; if > that's the case, we should see index-only scans performing much better > regular index scans, even when there's no physical I/O. So the above test has fit into the RAM. Now do we need a test with tables that won't fit into RAM. i feel if the thick indexes were effective with data that would fit into RAM, then it will definitely be more effective with data that wouldn't fit into RAM. There is one performance bug, with updates where the caching strategy for BTStack didn't go effective for the Varlena structures. i will fix that bug next time. Also calls to HOT related stuff can be avoided, if it happens to be a thick index, I think these two changes, if made would further improve the performance of thick indexes. > You should do some tuning, the PostgreSQL default configuration is not > >> tuned for maximum performance. At least increase checkpoint_segments > and > >> checkpoint_timeout and shared_buffers. Though I noticed that you're > >> running on Windows; I don't think anyone's done any serious performance > >> testing or tuning on Windows yet, so I'm not sure how you should tune > >> that. > > > > What we are trying to do here, is to try and compare the performance of > two > > indexing structures. AFAIK, the performance test done to compare two > > software implementations should not have parameter settings, favorable > to > > one. I have not done any settings change favorable to thick index. > > The tuning I suggested is just basic tuning any knowledgeable Postgres > DBA will do. It's not particularly in favor of any indexing scheme. With > the default checkpoint settings, for example, the system is going to be > busy doing checkpoints all the time if you have a reasonable rate of > updates. The inserts and updates were at the rate of 10 every 2 seconds (there in the performance report) and the update was affecting two rows. I i haven't got any warning to increase the checkpoint during the test. But my doubt is if checkpoint has caused so much of overhead, as we think of, how can the performance of thick indexes exceed thin indexes in index only scans? As you might have observed all the s
Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Including Snapshot Info with Indexes
Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote: > On 10/26/07, Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote: >>> As far as Load Test is concerned, i have tried to provide all the >> relevant >>> details. Please inform me, if i have left any. >> Thanks! >> >> How large were the tables? > > It is in the Performance test report. They contain 2 million records. 6 > columns wide, 3 text and 3 numeric. same set of tables used for both tests, > after refresh from a file I meant in megabytes. How wide is the data in the text and numeric fields? > Did you run all the queries concurrently? At this point, I think it'd be >> better to run them separately so that you can look at the impact on each >> kind of operation in isolation. >> > Performance tests are run against a workload and i have taken the workload > of a small scale partitioning setup. Running the queries individually has > already been done and the count of logical reads have been verified. I have > already suggested that. For some reason, i am not able to convince that for > simple index scans, Logical reads are a good measure of performance. I wouldn't expect any performance gain for simple, not index-only, scans. They have to hit the heap anyway. > What does the numbers look like if the the tables are small enough to >> fit in RAM? > > I don't know whether this is a valid production setup, against which we need > to benchmark. But if you insist, i will do that and get back to you next > time. A lot of people run databases that fit in RAM. And a lot of people don't. Both cases are interesting. I'm particularly curious about that because you've argued that the number of logical reads is important, even if they don't become physical reads. Hannu also suggested that swapping pages in/out of shared_buffers is relatively expensive; if that's the case, we should see index-only scans performing much better regular index scans, even when there's no physical I/O. > You should do some tuning, the PostgreSQL default configuration is not >> tuned for maximum performance. At least increase checkpoint_segments and >> checkpoint_timeout and shared_buffers. Though I noticed that you're >> running on Windows; I don't think anyone's done any serious performance >> testing or tuning on Windows yet, so I'm not sure how you should tune >> that. > > What we are trying to do here, is to try and compare the performance of two > indexing structures. AFAIK, the performance test done to compare two > software implementations should not have parameter settings, favorable to > one. I have not done any settings change favorable to thick index. The tuning I suggested is just basic tuning any knowledgeable Postgres DBA will do. It's not particularly in favor of any indexing scheme. With the default checkpoint settings, for example, the system is going to be busy doing checkpoints all the time if you have a reasonable rate of updates. > But i > have a limited setup, from which i am trying to contribute. So please don't > ask me to run the tests against large scale servers. Understood. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Including Snapshot Info with Indexes
On 10/26/07, Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote: > > As far as Load Test is concerned, i have tried to provide all the > relevant > > details. Please inform me, if i have left any. > > Thanks! > > How large were the tables? It is in the Performance test report. They contain 2 million records. 6 columns wide, 3 text and 3 numeric. same set of tables used for both tests, after refresh from a file Did you run all the queries concurrently? At this point, I think it'd be > better to run them separately so that you can look at the impact on each > kind of operation in isolation. > Performance tests are run against a workload and i have taken the workload of a small scale partitioning setup. Running the queries individually has already been done and the count of logical reads have been verified. I have already suggested that. For some reason, i am not able to convince that for simple index scans, Logical reads are a good measure of performance. What kind of an I/O system does the server have? Its a normal desktop system. The model no. is ST3400633A, 7200 RPM It'd be interesting to get the cache hit/miss ratios, as well as the > output of iostat (or similar) during the test. How much of the benefit > is due to reduced random I/O? Good suggestion. i have run the test against Windows. Let me try perfmon in the next performance test, to monitor the performance test. What does the numbers look like if the the tables are small enough to > fit in RAM? I don't know whether this is a valid production setup, against which we need to benchmark. But if you insist, i will do that and get back to you next time. You should do some tuning, the PostgreSQL default configuration is not > tuned for maximum performance. At least increase checkpoint_segments and > checkpoint_timeout and shared_buffers. Though I noticed that you're > running on Windows; I don't think anyone's done any serious performance > testing or tuning on Windows yet, so I'm not sure how you should tune > that. What we are trying to do here, is to try and compare the performance of two indexing structures. AFAIK, the performance test done to compare two software implementations should not have parameter settings, favorable to one. I have not done any settings change favorable to thick index. But i have a limited setup, from which i am trying to contribute. So please don't ask me to run the tests against large scale servers. I think a better idea would be to form a Performance testing Workload mix ( Taking into account the QoS Parameters used in the normal database, purging frequency, typical workload models used in the industry), with freedom in hardware/software can be drawn. That might solve some of the Load test riddles. -- Thanks, Gokul. CertoSQL Project, Allied Solution Groups. (www.alliedgroups.com)
Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Including Snapshot Info with Indexes
Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote: > As far as Load Test is concerned, i have tried to provide all the relevant > details. Please inform me, if i have left any. Thanks! How large were the tables? Did you run all the queries concurrently? At this point, I think it'd be better to run them separately so that you can look at the impact on each kind of operation in isolation. What kind of an I/O system does the server have? It'd be interesting to get the cache hit/miss ratios, as well as the output of iostat (or similar) during the test. How much of the benefit is due to reduced random I/O? What does the numbers look like if the the tables are small enough to fit in RAM? You should do some tuning, the PostgreSQL default configuration is not tuned for maximum performance. At least increase checkpoint_segments and checkpoint_timeout and shared_buffers. Though I noticed that you're running on Windows; I don't think anyone's done any serious performance testing or tuning on Windows yet, so I'm not sure how you should tune that. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Including Snapshot Info with Indexes
This has been saved for consideration for the 8.4 release: http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches_hold --- Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote: > Hi, > I would like to present the first patch. It currently has the following > restrictions > a) It does not support any functional indexes. > b) It supports queries like select count(1) from table where (restrictions > from indexed columns), but it does not support select count(1) from table. > > The Syntax to create this type of index is > > create thick index idx on dd(n1,n2) > > here idx- index name and dd- table name and n1 and n2 are column names. > > I have created a extra column in pg_index called indhassnapshot. > > I have also enabled the display of Logical Reads. In order to see that, set > log_statement_stats on. > > The thick index is clearly on the front, if you issue queries like > > select n2 from dd where n1>1000 and n2<1500; > > As already said, if the update is not incurring any extra cost, except if > the indexed columns are updated. Deletes are costly, making it ideal for > partitioned tables. > > In order to update the thick indexes, i have accessed the ps_ExprContext in > PlanState to get the oldtuple. But if we have a outer plan and inner plan, > then i have set the ps_ExprContext of innerplan to the outerplan. I don't > know whether there will be instances where the ps_ExprContext of outerplan > node will have some use in update queries. > > Right now, it passes the regression test suite. I had slight trouble with > pg_indent, so i think it has not got applied properly. But i have tried to > remove all the whitespace differences. Please be kind to me in case i have > missed any whitespace differences. :) > > Please review the patch and provide your comments. > > Thanks, > Gokul. > CertoSQL Project, > Allied Solution Groups. > (www.alliedgroups.com) > > On 10/23/07, Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > ?hel kenal p?eval, L, 2007-10-20 kell 10:19, kirjutas Luke Lonergan: > > > Hi Hannu, > > > > > > On 10/14/07 12:58 AM, "Hannu Krosing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > What has happened in reality, is that the speed difference between > > CPU, > > > > RAM and disk speeds has _increased_ tremendously > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > which makes it even > > > > more important to _decrease_ the size of stored data if you want good > > > > performance > > > > > > Or bring the cpu processing closer to the data it's using (or both). > > > > > > By default, the trend you mention first will continue in an unending way > > - > > > the consequence is that the "distance" between a processor and it's > > target > > > data will continue to increase ad-infinitum. > > > > the emergence of solid-state (flash) disks may help a little here, but > > in general it is true. > > > > > By contrast, you can only decrease the data volume so much - so in the > > end > > > you'll be left with the same problem - the data needs to be closer to > > the > > > processing. This is the essence of parallel / shared nothing > > architecture. > > > > > > Note that we've done this at Greenplum. We're also implementing a > > DSM-like > > > capability and are investigating a couple of different hybrid row / > > column > > > store approaches. > > > > Have you tried moving the whole visibility part of tuples out to a > > separate heap ? > > > > Especially in OLAP/ETL scenarios the distribution of tuples loaded in > > one transaction should be very good for visibility-info compression. > > > > I'd suspect that you could crush hundreds of pages worth of visibility > > into single RLE encoding unit (xmin=N, xmax=no_yet, start_ctid = X, > > end_ctid=Y), and it will stay in L1 cache most of the time you process > > the corresponding relation. and the relation itself will be smaller, and > > index-only (actually index-only + lookup inside L1 cache) access can > > happen, and so on . > > > > OTOH, if you load it in millions of small transactions, you can run > > VACUUM FREEZE _on_ the visibility heap only, which will make all > > visibility infoe look similar and thus RLE-compressable and again make > > it fit in L1 cache, if you dont have lots of failed loads interleaved > > with successful ones. > > > > > Bitmap index with index-only access does provide nearly all of the > > > advantages of a column store from a speed standpoint BTW. Even though > > > Vertica is touting speed advantages - our parallel engine plus bitmap > > index > > > will crush them in benchmarks when they show up with real code. > > > > > > Meanwhile they're moving on to new ideas - I kid you not "Horizontica" > > is > > > Dr. Stonebraker's new idea :-) > > > > Sounds like a result of a marketroid brainstorming session :P > > > > > So - bottom line - some ideas from column store make sense, but it's not > > a > > > cure-all. > > > > > > > There is also a MonetDB/X100 project, which tries to
Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Including Snapshot Info with Indexes
On 10/23/07, Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ühel kenal päeval, T, 2007-10-23 kell 18:36, kirjutas Gokulakannan > Somasundaram: > > > > > There are several advantages to keeping a separate visibility > > heap: > > > > 1) it is usually higly compressible, at least you can throw > > away > > cmin/cmax quite soon, usually also FREEZE and RLE encode the > > rest. > > > > 2) faster access, more tightly packed data pages. > > > > 3) index-only scans > > > > 4) superfast VACUUM FREEZE > > > > 5) makes VACUUM faster even for worst cases (interleaving live > > and dead > > tuples) > > > > 6) any index scan will be faster due to fetching only visible > > rows from > > main heap. > > > > if you have to store the visibility fields of all the tuples of each > > table, then you may not be able to accomodate in the cache. Say if a > > table is of 1 million rows, we would need 22 MB of visibility > > space(since visibility info takes 16 bytes. I think if we have to link > > it with say tuple-id(6 Bytes). > > You can keep the visibility info small, by first dropping cmin/cmax and > then FREEZ'ing the tuples (setting xmin to special value), after that > you can replace a lot of visibility info tuples with single RLE encoded > tuple, which simply states, that tuples N:A to M:B are visible. I think i am missing something here. say if we have a tuple to your definition. Initially it has cmin/cmax and then you drop it. Is it a in-place update? how will you reclaim that space, if it is a in-place update? If we set N:A to M:B are visible, then suppose some tuple in between is deleted, then we need to write the info in a different format. Till that whole update happens, lot of transactions will be waiting to acquire the lock on the same visibility info block. i feel that may again lead to the same concurrency issues. If that 1 million row table is mostly static, the static parts will soon > have (al lot) less than 1 bit in visibility heap. > > For example, after vacuum there will be just one visibility info which > say that whole table is visible. > > I envision HOT-like on-the-fly VACUUM FREEZE manipulations of visibility > info so it won't grow very big at all. If the tables are static, then DSM becomes the best solution, may be if you are storing one bit per table, then yours become the best solution. > I think we may need to link it with indexes with one more id. i am not > > counting that now). > > why ? If we are going to store something like a range of tuples are visible, how we will reach that particular info. Don't we need a pointer to reach that memory block. we will keep visibility info for ctids (PAGE:NR) and if we need to see, > if any ctid pointe from index points to a visible tuple we check it > based on that ctid. Oh then you occupy space proportional to the number of tuples. it would be like a hash map, mapping ctids to the information. so if we have a information like M:A to N:B are visible, then should we be placing it against each ctid? > If we have 10 tables, then we will have 220 MB. Keeping them pinned > > in memory may not be advisable in some circumstances. > > no no! no pinning, the "mostly in cache" will happen automatically (and > I mean mostly in processors _internal_ L1 or L2 cache, not just in RAM) L1 and L2 data caches. hmmm. i think the basic problem with visibility is if you make it too small, then updates get costly in terms of concurrency. > If it is not going to be in memory, then that is no different from > > referring a table. But i accept that is a concept worth trying out. I > > think the advantage with thick indexes comes with the fact, that it is > > optional. If we can make this also as optional, that would be better. > > But if we are going to suggest it as a replacement of DSM, then it > > loses the advantage of being small. > > I agree that a single-purpose DSM can be made smaller than multi-purpose > visibility heap. > > > > > -- Thanks, Gokul. CertoSQL Project, Allied Solution Groups. (www.alliedgroups.com)
Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Including Snapshot Info with Indexes
Ühel kenal päeval, T, 2007-10-23 kell 14:16, kirjutas Heikki Linnakangas: > Hannu Krosing wrote: > > I would suggest that you use just an additional heap with decoupled > > visibility fields as DSM. > > Yeah, I remember you've suggested that before, and I haven't responded > this far. The problems I see with that approach are: > > 1) How do you know which visibility info corresponds which heap tuple? > You'd need to have a pointer from the visibility info to the heap tuple, > and from the heap tuple to the visibility info. Which increases the > total (uncompressed) storage size. only the first , and not a pointer mostly , but just a fast lookup function IsVisible(ctid, snapshot) > 2) If the visibility info / heap ordering isn't the same, seqscans need > to do random I/O. Visibility should be a tree-like structure, with wholly-(visible/invisible) inner pages removed, stored in seqscan order. seqscans will get a few (or few hundred) pages worth of sequential info and then fetch only visible tuples from heap, then repeat > 3) If you need to do regular index scans, you're going to have to access > the index, the heap and the visibility info separately, and in that > order. That sounds expensive. I'd do it in order 1) index 2) visibility 3) heap The main assumption is, that visibility info is highly compressed --> stays in processor cache most of the time --> virtually free to access > 4) It's a big and complex change. We can go in smaller steps, first adding it as a DSM replacement and as a complement to visibility info in heap and only when we are sure that we have gotten it right (by checking that there is always valid info in visibility heap) will we move other internal stuff to using it, one by one. > The significance of 2 and 3 depends a lot on how much of the visibility > information is in cache. > > > For a large number of usage scenarios this will be highly compressible > > and will mostly stay in processor caches . > > This seems to be where the potential gains are coming from in this > scheme. It boils down to how much compression you can do, and how > expensive it is to access the information in compressed form. Hopefully much cheaper than in uncompressed form, the best case being when the table is static and you do an in-L1-cache lookup on VizHeap root page > > 1) it is usually higly compressible, at least you can throw away > > cmin/cmax quite soon, usually also FREEZE and RLE encode the rest. > > If you RLE compress the data, you'll need to figure out what to do when > you need update a field and it doesn't compress as well anymore. You > might have to move things around pages, so you'll have to update any > pointers to that information atomically. I envision each RLE range to have an exception list, which can be appended to atomically with no locks. only when the list is long enough will there be locking and rearranging. > > 2) faster access, more tightly packed data pages. > > But you do need to access the visibility information as well, at least > on tuples that match the query. usually you even access visbility first, then data (if visible). > > 5) makes VACUUM faster even for worst cases (interleaving live and dead > > tuples) > > Does it? You still need to go to the heap pages to actually remove the > dead tuples. I suppose you could skip that and do it the first time you > access the page, like we do pruning with HOT. Possibly for heap. But not for indexes which have to be cleaned up during vacuum. At least I can't see how we could do it later. OTOH, we can have very fast VACUUM FREEZE ONLY command, which will run on just visibility heap and FREEZE all visible-to-all tuples and compress them. It should also mark all aborted or deleted-and-invisible-to-all to a separate value so they too compress better. > > 6) any index scan will be faster due to fetching only visible rows from > > main heap. > > Assuming the visibility information is already in cache, and that > there's enough non-visible tuples for that to matter. If there is not enough, then the visibility info is likely very highly compressible and thus cheap to access. Hannu ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Including Snapshot Info with Indexes
Ühel kenal päeval, T, 2007-10-23 kell 18:36, kirjutas Gokulakannan Somasundaram: > > There are several advantages to keeping a separate visibility > heap: > > 1) it is usually higly compressible, at least you can throw > away > cmin/cmax quite soon, usually also FREEZE and RLE encode the > rest. > > 2) faster access, more tightly packed data pages. > > 3) index-only scans > > 4) superfast VACUUM FREEZE > > 5) makes VACUUM faster even for worst cases (interleaving live > and dead > tuples) > > 6) any index scan will be faster due to fetching only visible > rows from > main heap. > > if you have to store the visibility fields of all the tuples of each > table, then you may not be able to accomodate in the cache. Say if a > table is of 1 million rows, we would need 22 MB of visibility > space(since visibility info takes 16 bytes. I think if we have to link > it with say tuple-id(6 Bytes). You can keep the visibility info small, by first dropping cmin/cmax and then FREEZ'ing the tuples (setting xmin to special value), after that you can replace a lot of visibility info tuples with single RLE encoded tuple, which simply states, that tuples N:A to M:B are visible. If that 1 million row table is mostly static, the static parts will soon have (al lot) less than 1 bit in visibility heap. For example, after vacuum there will be just one visibility info which say that whole table is visible. I envision HOT-like on-the-fly VACUUM FREEZE manipulations of visibility info so it won't grow very big at all. > I think we may need to link it with indexes with one more id. i am not > counting that now). why ? we will keep visibility info for ctids (PAGE:NR) and if we need to see, if any ctid pointe from index points to a visible tuple we check it based on that ctid. > If we have 10 tables, then we will have 220 MB. Keeping them pinned > in memory may not be advisable in some circumstances. no no! no pinning, the "mostly in cache" will happen automatically (and I mean mostly in processors _internal_ L1 or L2 cache, not just in RAM) > If it is not going to be in memory, then that is no different from > referring a table. But i accept that is a concept worth trying out. I > think the advantage with thick indexes comes with the fact, that it is > optional. If we can make this also as optional, that would be better. > But if we are going to suggest it as a replacement of DSM, then it > loses the advantage of being small. I agree that a single-purpose DSM can be made smaller than multi-purpose visibility heap. -- Hannu ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Including Snapshot Info with Indexes
Hannu Krosing wrote: > I would suggest that you use just an additional heap with decoupled > visibility fields as DSM. Yeah, I remember you've suggested that before, and I haven't responded this far. The problems I see with that approach are: 1) How do you know which visibility info corresponds which heap tuple? You'd need to have a pointer from the visibility info to the heap tuple, and from the heap tuple to the visibility info. Which increases the total (uncompressed) storage size. 2) If the visibility info / heap ordering isn't the same, seqscans need to do random I/O. 3) If you need to do regular index scans, you're going to have to access the index, the heap and the visibility info separately, and in that order. That sounds expensive. 4) It's a big and complex change. The significance of 2 and 3 depends a lot on how much of the visibility information is in cache. > For a large number of usage scenarios this will be highly compressible > and will mostly stay in processor caches . This seems to be where the potential gains are coming from in this scheme. It boils down to how much compression you can do, and how expensive it is to access the information in compressed form. > 1) it is usually higly compressible, at least you can throw away > cmin/cmax quite soon, usually also FREEZE and RLE encode the rest. If you RLE compress the data, you'll need to figure out what to do when you need update a field and it doesn't compress as well anymore. You might have to move things around pages, so you'll have to update any pointers to that information atomically. > 2) faster access, more tightly packed data pages. But you do need to access the visibility information as well, at least on tuples that match the query. > 5) makes VACUUM faster even for worst cases (interleaving live and dead > tuples) Does it? You still need to go to the heap pages to actually remove the dead tuples. I suppose you could skip that and do it the first time you access the page, like we do pruning with HOT. > 6) any index scan will be faster due to fetching only visible rows from > main heap. Assuming the visibility information is already in cache, and that there's enough non-visible tuples for that to matter. >> BTW, another issue you'll have to tackle, that a DSM-based patch will >> have to solve as well, is how to return tuples from an index. In b-tree, >> we scan pages page at a time, keeping a list of all tids that match the >> scanquals in BTScanOpaque. If we need to return not only the tids of the >> matching tuples, but the tuples as well, where do we store them? You >> could make a palloc'd copy of them all, but that seems quite expensive. > > Have you considered returning them as "already visibility-checked pages" > similar to what views or set-returning functions return ? Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by that. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Including Snapshot Info with Indexes
On 10/23/07, Hannu Krosing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ühel kenal päeval, T, 2007-10-23 kell 13:04, kirjutas Heikki > Linnakangas: > > Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote: > > > Say, with a normal index, you need to goto the table for checking the > > > snapshot. So you would be loading both the index pages + table pages, > in > > > order to satisfy a certain operations. Whereas in thick index you > occupy 16 > > > bytes per tuple more in order to avoid going to the table. So memory > > > management is again better. But i can run the load test, if that's > > > required. > > > > Yes, performance testing is required for any performance-related patch. > > > > Remember that you're competing against DSM. We're going to want some > > kind of a DSM anyway because it allows skipping unmodified parts of the > > heap in vacuum. > > I would suggest that you use just an additional heap with decoupled > visibility fields as DSM. > > For a large number of usage scenarios this will be highly compressible > and will mostly stay in processor caches . > > You can start slow, and have the info duplicated in both main heap and > visibility heap (aka DSM). > > There are several advantages to keeping a separate visibility heap: > > 1) it is usually higly compressible, at least you can throw away > cmin/cmax quite soon, usually also FREEZE and RLE encode the rest. > > 2) faster access, more tightly packed data pages. > > 3) index-only scans > > 4) superfast VACUUM FREEZE > > 5) makes VACUUM faster even for worst cases (interleaving live and dead > tuples) > > 6) any index scan will be faster due to fetching only visible rows from > main heap. if you have to store the visibility fields of all the tuples of each table, then you may not be able to accomodate in the cache. Say if a table is of 1 million rows, we would need 22 MB of visibility space(since visibility info takes 16 bytes. I think if we have to link it with say tuple-id(6 Bytes). I think we may need to link it with indexes with one more id. i am not counting that now). If we have 10 tables, then we will have 220 MB. Keeping them pinned in memory may not be advisable in some circumstances. If it is not going to be in memory, then that is no different from referring a table. But i accept that is a concept worth trying out. I think the advantage with thick indexes comes with the fact, that it is optional. If we can make this also as optional, that would be better. But if we are going to suggest it as a replacement of DSM, then it loses the advantage of being small. > > Even when all the tuples are in memory, index only scans are > > > almost 40-60% faster than the index scans with thin indexes. > > > > Have you actually benchmarked that? What kind of query was that? I don't > > believe for a second that fetching the heap tuple when the page is in > > memory accounts for 40-60% of the overhead of regular index scans. > > It depends heavily on the type of memory (postgresql page or disk cache) > it is in. > > I remember doing Slony sobscribes in early days, and the speed > difference on loading a table with active PK index was several times, > depending on shared_buffers setting. > > That was for a table, where both heap and index did fit in the 2G memory > which was available, the difference being only shuffling the pages > between postgresql buffer and linux system cache or not. > > > BTW, another issue you'll have to tackle, that a DSM-based patch will > > have to solve as well, is how to return tuples from an index. In b-tree, > > we scan pages page at a time, keeping a list of all tids that match the > > scanquals in BTScanOpaque. If we need to return not only the tids of the > > matching tuples, but the tuples as well, where do we store them? You > > could make a palloc'd copy of them all, but that seems quite expensive. > > Have you considered returning them as "already visibility-checked pages" > similar to what views or set-returning functions return ? > > --- > Hannu > > > > > -- Thanks, Gokul. CertoSQL Project, Allied Solution Groups. (www.alliedgroups.com)
Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Including Snapshot Info with Indexes
Ühel kenal päeval, T, 2007-10-23 kell 13:04, kirjutas Heikki Linnakangas: > Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote: > > Say, with a normal index, you need to goto the table for checking the > > snapshot. So you would be loading both the index pages + table pages, in > > order to satisfy a certain operations. Whereas in thick index you occupy 16 > > bytes per tuple more in order to avoid going to the table. So memory > > management is again better. But i can run the load test, if that's > > required. > > Yes, performance testing is required for any performance-related patch. > > Remember that you're competing against DSM. We're going to want some > kind of a DSM anyway because it allows skipping unmodified parts of the > heap in vacuum. I would suggest that you use just an additional heap with decoupled visibility fields as DSM. For a large number of usage scenarios this will be highly compressible and will mostly stay in processor caches . You can start slow, and have the info duplicated in both main heap and visibility heap (aka DSM). There are several advantages to keeping a separate visibility heap: 1) it is usually higly compressible, at least you can throw away cmin/cmax quite soon, usually also FREEZE and RLE encode the rest. 2) faster access, more tightly packed data pages. 3) index-only scans 4) superfast VACUUM FREEZE 5) makes VACUUM faster even for worst cases (interleaving live and dead tuples) 6) any index scan will be faster due to fetching only visible rows from main heap. > > Even when all the tuples are in memory, index only scans are > > almost 40-60% faster than the index scans with thin indexes. > > Have you actually benchmarked that? What kind of query was that? I don't > believe for a second that fetching the heap tuple when the page is in > memory accounts for 40-60% of the overhead of regular index scans. It depends heavily on the type of memory (postgresql page or disk cache) it is in. I remember doing Slony sobscribes in early days, and the speed difference on loading a table with active PK index was several times, depending on shared_buffers setting. That was for a table, where both heap and index did fit in the 2G memory which was available, the difference being only shuffling the pages between postgresql buffer and linux system cache or not. > BTW, another issue you'll have to tackle, that a DSM-based patch will > have to solve as well, is how to return tuples from an index. In b-tree, > we scan pages page at a time, keeping a list of all tids that match the > scanquals in BTScanOpaque. If we need to return not only the tids of the > matching tuples, but the tuples as well, where do we store them? You > could make a palloc'd copy of them all, but that seems quite expensive. Have you considered returning them as "already visibility-checked pages" similar to what views or set-returning functions return ? --- Hannu ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Including Snapshot Info with Indexes
On 10/23/07, Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote: > > Say, with a normal index, you need to goto the table for checking the > > snapshot. So you would be loading both the index pages + table pages, in > > order to satisfy a certain operations. Whereas in thick index you occupy > 16 > > bytes per tuple more in order to avoid going to the table. So memory > > management is again better. But i can run the load test, if that's > > required. > > Yes, performance testing is required for any performance-related patch. > > Remember that you're competing against DSM. We're going to want some > kind of a DSM anyway because it allows skipping unmodified parts of the > heap in vacuum. > > > Even when all the tuples are in memory, index only scans are > > almost 40-60% faster than the index scans with thin indexes. > > Have you actually benchmarked that? What kind of query was that? I don't > believe for a second that fetching the heap tuple when the page is in > memory accounts for 40-60% of the overhead of regular index scans. The patch has been submitted. Try Explain Analyze. You can see it for yourself. Try creating a table and normal index. try creating another table with thick index. Check for queries which involves index-only scans. it won't get displayed in the plan. If you create a index on (n1,n2) and insert some 100,000 rows try querying like select n2 from table where n1 > and n1 <. Play around with it to see the difference. > What do you thick about not maintaining pins in case of thick indexes? > > Seems irrelevant. Keeping a page pinned is cheap. I am not referring to the process of pinning a page. It is the occupation of 8KB of memory. you don't need to occupy it in case of thick indexes, once the page is referred. BTW, another issue you'll have to tackle, that a DSM-based patch will > have to solve as well, is how to return tuples from an index. In b-tree, > we scan pages page at a time, keeping a list of all tids that match the > scanquals in BTScanOpaque. If we need to return not only the tids of the > matching tuples, but the tuples as well, where do we store them? You > could make a palloc'd copy of them all, but that seems quite expensive. I have done a palloc for MinimalIndexTuple(with just the datums). palloc is costly, but it is not as costly as referring to a table. In other words it is not as costly as an I/O. Memory operates in micro seconds, I/O operates in milli seconds. I think the performance test results would answer these concerns. Are you convinced with the update performance? Definitely that's not there with DSM:) Thanks, Gokul. CertoSQL Project. Allied Solution Groups. (www.alliedgroups.com)
Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Including Snapshot Info with Indexes
Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote: > Say, with a normal index, you need to goto the table for checking the > snapshot. So you would be loading both the index pages + table pages, in > order to satisfy a certain operations. Whereas in thick index you occupy 16 > bytes per tuple more in order to avoid going to the table. So memory > management is again better. But i can run the load test, if that's > required. Yes, performance testing is required for any performance-related patch. Remember that you're competing against DSM. We're going to want some kind of a DSM anyway because it allows skipping unmodified parts of the heap in vacuum. > Even when all the tuples are in memory, index only scans are > almost 40-60% faster than the index scans with thin indexes. Have you actually benchmarked that? What kind of query was that? I don't believe for a second that fetching the heap tuple when the page is in memory accounts for 40-60% of the overhead of regular index scans. > What do you thick about not maintaining pins in case of thick indexes? Seems irrelevant. Keeping a page pinned is cheap. BTW, another issue you'll have to tackle, that a DSM-based patch will have to solve as well, is how to return tuples from an index. In b-tree, we scan pages page at a time, keeping a list of all tids that match the scanquals in BTScanOpaque. If we need to return not only the tids of the matching tuples, but the tuples as well, where do we store them? You could make a palloc'd copy of them all, but that seems quite expensive. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Including Snapshot Info with Indexes
On 10/23/07, Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Please keep the list cc'd. > > Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote: > > On 10/23/07, Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote: > >> I have also enabled the display of Logical Reads. In order to see that, > >> set > >>> log_statement_stats on. > >> You should start benchmarking, to verify that you're really getting the > >> kind of speed up you're looking for, before you spend any more effort > on > >> that. Reduction in logical reads alone isn't enough. Remember that for > a > >> big change like that, the gain has to be big as well. > > > > I have done the benchmark. I have done the benchmark with Logical reads, > as > > they turn out to be potential physical reads. Try turning on the > > log_statement_stats in postgresql.conf. try firing some queries, which > can > > satisfied by the index. You would see the difference. > > I would see a decrease in the number of logical reads, that's all. You > need to demonstrate a real increase in throughput and/or reduction in > response times. > > Note that even though you reduce the number of logical reads, with a > thick index a logical read is *more* likely to be a physical read, > because the index is larger and therefore consumes more cache. Say, with a normal index, you need to goto the table for checking the snapshot. So you would be loading both the index pages + table pages, in order to satisfy a certain operations. Whereas in thick index you occupy 16 bytes per tuple more in order to avoid going to the table. So memory management is again better. But i can run the load test, if that's required. Even when all the tuples are in memory, index only scans are almost 40-60% faster than the index scans with thin indexes. > As a first test, I'd like to see results from SELECTs on different sized > >> tables. On tables that fit in cache, and on tables that don't. Tables > >> large enough that the index doesn't fit in cache. And as a special > case, > >> on a table just the right size that a normal index fits in cache, but a > >> thick one doesn't. > > > > I have not done a Load test. That's a good idea. Are you guys using > Apache > > JMeter? > > You can use whatever you want, as long as you can get the relevant > numbers out of it. contrib/pgbench is a good place to start. > > DBT-2 is another test people often use for patches like this. It's quite > tedious to set up and operate, but it'll give you nice very graphs. > > Make sure you control vacuums, checkpoints etc., so that you get > repeatable results. Sure i will do that. Thanks for the advice. > Also i think you might have noted that the thick indexes are not affected > by > > updates, if the updated column is not in the index. I think that add on > to > > one more advantage of thick indexes against DSM. > > That cannot possibly work. Imagine that you have a table > > ctid | id | data > -++- > (0,1)| 1 | foo > (0,2)| 1 | bar > > where (0,2) is an updated version of (0,1). If you don't update the > index, there will be no index pointer to (0,2), so a regular index scan, > not an index-only scan, will not find the updated tuple. > > Or did you mean that the index is not updated on HOT updates? That's an > interesting observation. We could do index-only scans with the DSM as > well, even if there's HOT updates, if we define the bit in the bitmap to > mean "all tuples in this page are visible to everyone, or there's only > HOT updates". That works, because an index-only-scan doesn't access any > of the updated columns. It probably isn't worth it, though. Seems like a > pretty narrow use case, and makes it more complicated. I think i was not understood. An update transaction is not degraded by thick index. Update = Delete + insert. If you don't update the columns in index, then we would goto the same index page for both delete and insert. i have done a small optimization there to cache the BTStack. you do not need to do any more I/O. So effectively update performance in thick index = update performance in thin index (if indexed columns are not updated). Hope i am clear.. What do you thick about not maintaining pins in case of thick indexes? Thanks, Gokul, CertoSQL Project, Allied Solution Groups. (www.alliedgroups.com)
Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Including Snapshot Info with Indexes
Please keep the list cc'd. Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote: > On 10/23/07, Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote: >> I have also enabled the display of Logical Reads. In order to see that, >> set >>> log_statement_stats on. >> You should start benchmarking, to verify that you're really getting the >> kind of speed up you're looking for, before you spend any more effort on >> that. Reduction in logical reads alone isn't enough. Remember that for a >> big change like that, the gain has to be big as well. > > I have done the benchmark. I have done the benchmark with Logical reads, as > they turn out to be potential physical reads. Try turning on the > log_statement_stats in postgresql.conf. try firing some queries, which can > satisfied by the index. You would see the difference. I would see a decrease in the number of logical reads, that's all. You need to demonstrate a real increase in throughput and/or reduction in response times. Note that even though you reduce the number of logical reads, with a thick index a logical read is *more* likely to be a physical read, because the index is larger and therefore consumes more cache. > As a first test, I'd like to see results from SELECTs on different sized >> tables. On tables that fit in cache, and on tables that don't. Tables >> large enough that the index doesn't fit in cache. And as a special case, >> on a table just the right size that a normal index fits in cache, but a >> thick one doesn't. > > I have not done a Load test. That's a good idea. Are you guys using Apache > JMeter? You can use whatever you want, as long as you can get the relevant numbers out of it. contrib/pgbench is a good place to start. DBT-2 is another test people often use for patches like this. It's quite tedious to set up and operate, but it'll give you nice very graphs. Make sure you control vacuums, checkpoints etc., so that you get repeatable results. > Also i think you might have noted that the thick indexes are not affected by > updates, if the updated column is not in the index. I think that add on to > one more advantage of thick indexes against DSM. That cannot possibly work. Imagine that you have a table ctid | id | data -++- (0,1)| 1 | foo (0,2)| 1 | bar where (0,2) is an updated version of (0,1). If you don't update the index, there will be no index pointer to (0,2), so a regular index scan, not an index-only scan, will not find the updated tuple. Or did you mean that the index is not updated on HOT updates? That's an interesting observation. We could do index-only scans with the DSM as well, even if there's HOT updates, if we define the bit in the bitmap to mean "all tuples in this page are visible to everyone, or there's only HOT updates". That works, because an index-only-scan doesn't access any of the updated columns. It probably isn't worth it, though. Seems like a pretty narrow use case, and makes it more complicated. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Including Snapshot Info with Indexes
On 10/23/07, Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote: > > I would like to present the first patch. It currently has the > following > > restrictions > > a) It does not support any functional indexes. > > b) It supports queries like select count(1) from table where > (restrictions > > from indexed columns), but it does not support select count(1) from > table. > > An interesting question is how to represent tuples coming from the index > in the executor. I see that you didn't address that at all, because you > only support "COUNT(1)", and not things like "SELECT column FROM table > WHERE id = ?" where you actually return datums from the index. But > that's something that we have to think about in the DSM approach as well. That's addressed as well. One solution is to form a heap tuple, using the datums from the index, > with the attributes that are not used in the query replaced with NULLs. > That seems simple, but I don't think it'll work with expression indexes, > when you do something like "SELECT length(column) FROM table WHERE id = > ?", and there's an index on (id, length(column)). > > > I have also enabled the display of Logical Reads. In order to see that, > set > > log_statement_stats on. > > You should start benchmarking, to verify that you're really getting the > kind of speed up you're looking for, before you spend any more effort on > that. Reduction in logical reads alone isn't enough. Remember that for a > big change like that, the gain has to be big as well. > > As a first test, I'd like to see results from SELECTs on different sized > tables. On tables that fit in cache, and on tables that don't. Tables > large enough that the index doesn't fit in cache. And as a special case, > on a table just the right size that a normal index fits in cache, but a > thick one doesn't. > > -- > Heikki Linnakangas > EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com >
Re: [PATCHES] [HACKERS] Including Snapshot Info with Indexes
Gokulakannan Somasundaram wrote: > I would like to present the first patch. It currently has the following > restrictions > a) It does not support any functional indexes. > b) It supports queries like select count(1) from table where (restrictions > from indexed columns), but it does not support select count(1) from table. An interesting question is how to represent tuples coming from the index in the executor. I see that you didn't address that at all, because you only support "COUNT(1)", and not things like "SELECT column FROM table WHERE id = ?" where you actually return datums from the index. But that's something that we have to think about in the DSM approach as well. One solution is to form a heap tuple, using the datums from the index, with the attributes that are not used in the query replaced with NULLs. That seems simple, but I don't think it'll work with expression indexes, when you do something like "SELECT length(column) FROM table WHERE id = ?", and there's an index on (id, length(column)). > I have also enabled the display of Logical Reads. In order to see that, set > log_statement_stats on. You should start benchmarking, to verify that you're really getting the kind of speed up you're looking for, before you spend any more effort on that. Reduction in logical reads alone isn't enough. Remember that for a big change like that, the gain has to be big as well. As a first test, I'd like to see results from SELECTs on different sized tables. On tables that fit in cache, and on tables that don't. Tables large enough that the index doesn't fit in cache. And as a special case, on a table just the right size that a normal index fits in cache, but a thick one doesn't. -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
