Re: old synchronized scan patch

On Tue, 2006-12-05 at 15:54 +0100, Florian G. Pflug wrote:
> Hannu Krosing wrote:
> > The worst that can happen, is a hash collision, in which case you lose
> > the benefits of sync scans, but you wont degrade compared to non-sync
> > scans
>
> But it could cause "mysterious" performance regressions, no?
> Image that your app includes two large tables, which are both
> scannen frequently. Suppose that synchronous scanning gives this
> use-case a noticeable performance boost. Now, you dump and reload
> your schema, and suddently the hashes of oids of those tables
> collide. You percieve a noticeable drop in performance that you
> can neither explain nor fix without a rather deep understanding
> of postgres internals.
>

A good point. We can hopefully make this relatively rare with a decent
hashing algorithm (right now I just mod by the table size), and a
reasonable-sized table.

For your problem to occur, you'd need two relations which are both
scanned very frequently at the same time and also have a hash
collision.

We can mitigate the problem by not reporting to the table unless the
table is a minimum size (perhaps related to effective_cache_size), so
that tables that are in memory anyway don't write over another table's
hint.

Or, we could use a dynamic structure, use locking, and only write a hint
every K pages, or something similar.

Regards,
Jeff Davis