On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Kouhei Kaigai kai...@ak.jp.nec.com wrote:
Hello,
The attached patches are revised ones according to the latest custom-plan
interface patch (v11).
The cache-scan module was re-implemented on the newer interface, and also
I noticed the extension does not
KaiGai Kohei kai...@ak.jp.nec.com
-Original Message-
From: Haribabu Kommi [mailto:kommi.harib...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 11:14 AM
To: Kaigai Kouhei(海外 浩平)
Cc: Kohei KaiGai; Tom Lane; PgHacker; Robert Haas
Subject: Re: contrib/cache_scan (Re: [HACKERS] What's needed
...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Haribabu Kommi
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 1:14 PM
To: Kohei KaiGai
Cc: Kaigai Kouhei(海外 浩平); Tom Lane; PgHacker; Robert Haas
Subject: Re: contrib/cache_scan (Re: [HACKERS] What's needed for cache-only
table scan?)
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Kohei
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 5:26 PM, Kouhei Kaigai kai...@ak.jp.nec.com wrote:
Thanks for your efforts!
Head patched
Diff
Select - 500K772ms2659ms-200%
Insert - 400K 3429ms 1948ms 43%
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
2014-03-06 18:17 GMT+09:00 Haribabu Kommi kommi.harib...@gmail.com:
I will update you later regarding the performance test results.
I ran the performance test on the cache scan patch and below are the readings.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Kouhei Kaigai kai...@ak.jp.nec.com wrote:
4. + cchunk = ccache_vacuum_tuple(ccache, ccache-root_chunk, ctid);
+ if (pchunk != NULL pchunk != cchunk)
+ ccache_merge_chunk(ccache, pchunk);
+ pchunk = cchunk;
The merge_chunk is called
2014-03-06 18:17 GMT+09:00 Haribabu Kommi kommi.harib...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Kouhei Kaigai kai...@ak.jp.nec.com wrote:
4. + cchunk = ccache_vacuum_tuple(ccache, ccache-root_chunk, ctid);
+ if (pchunk != NULL pchunk != cchunk)
+ ccache_merge_chunk(ccache,
Thanks for the information, I will apply other patches also and
start testing.
When try to run the pgbench test, by default the cache-scan plan is not
chosen because of more cost. So I increased the cpu_index_tuple_cost to
a maximum value or by turning off index_scan, so that the
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Haribabu Kommi
kommi.harib...@gmail.comwrote:
Thanks for the information, I will apply other patches also and start
testing.
When try to run the pgbench test, by default the cache-scan plan is not
chosen because of more cost. So I increased the
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:44 AM, Kouhei Kaigai kai...@ak.jp.nec.comwrote:
Thanks for your testing,
Getting some compilation warnings while compiling the extension and also
I am not able to load the extension because of undefined symbol
get_restriction_qual_cost.
It seems to me you
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 2:19 AM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
Hello,
The attached patch is a revised one for cache-only scan module
on top of custom-scan interface. Please check it.
Thanks for the revised patch. Please find some minor comments.
1. memcpy(dest, tuple,
2014-02-12 14:59 GMT+09:00 Haribabu Kommi kommi.harib...@gmail.com:
I reviewed all the three patches. The first 1 and 2 core PostgreSQL patches
are fine.
And I have comments in the third patch related to cache scan.
Thanks for your volunteering.
1. +# contrib/dbcache/Makefile
Makefile
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
2014-02-12 14:59 GMT+09:00 Haribabu Kommi kommi.harib...@gmail.com:
7. In ccache_find_tuple function this Assert(i_min + 1 cchunk-ntups);
can
go wrong when only one tuple present in the block
with the equal item
/cache_scan (Re: [HACKERS] What's needed for cache-only
table scan?)
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 2:42 AM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
2014-02-12 14:59 GMT+09:00 Haribabu Kommi
kommi.harib...@gmail.com:
7. In ccache_find_tuple function this Assert(i_min + 1
cchunk
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 1:09 PM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
Hello,
Because of time pressure in the commit-fest:Jan, I tried to simplifies the
patch
for cache-only scan into three portions; (1) add a hook on heap_page_prune
for cache invalidation on vacuuming a particular page.
Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp writes:
The cache-only table scan, being in subject line, is an alternative scan
logic towards sequential scan if all the referenced columns are cached.
This seems like a pretty dubious idea to me --- you're talking about
expending large amounts of memory on a
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
It is a brief design proposal of a feature I'd like to implement on top of
custom-scan APIs. Because it (probably) requires a few additional base
features not only custom-scan, I'd like to see feedback from the hackers.
2013/11/12 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp writes:
The cache-only table scan, being in subject line, is an alternative scan
logic towards sequential scan if all the referenced columns are cached.
This seems like a pretty dubious idea to me --- you're talking
2013/11/12 Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
It is a brief design proposal of a feature I'd like to implement on top of
custom-scan APIs. Because it (probably) requires a few additional base
features not only
Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp writes:
2013/11/12 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
There's no possible way you'll finish this for 9.4.
Yes, I understand it is not possible to submit whole of the patch until
CF3 deadline. So, I'd like to find out a way to implement it as an
extension using
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
Hello,
It is a brief design proposal of a feature I'd like to implement on top of
custom-scan APIs. Because it (probably) requires a few additional base
features not only custom-scan, I'd like to see feedback from the
2013/11/12 Claudio Freire klaussfre...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp wrote:
Hello,
It is a brief design proposal of a feature I'd like to implement on top of
custom-scan APIs. Because it (probably) requires a few additional base
features not
2013/11/12 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp writes:
2013/11/12 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
There's no possible way you'll finish this for 9.4.
Yes, I understand it is not possible to submit whole of the patch until
CF3 deadline. So, I'd like to find out a way to
Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp writes:
So, are you thinking it is a feasible approach to focus on custom-scan
APIs during the upcoming CF3, then table-caching feature as use-case
of this APIs on CF4?
Sure. If you work on this extension after CF3, and it reveals that the
custom scan stuff
2013/11/12 Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us:
Kohei KaiGai kai...@kaigai.gr.jp writes:
So, are you thinking it is a feasible approach to focus on custom-scan
APIs during the upcoming CF3, then table-caching feature as use-case
of this APIs on CF4?
Sure. If you work on this extension after CF3,
25 matches
Mail list logo
