Re: the big picture for index-only scans

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: the big picture for index-only scans
Date: 2011-05-11 14:40:58
Message-ID: 25723.1305124858@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> On 10.05.2011 20:15, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> I can picture that. Regrettably, I can also picture the accesses to
>> the visibility map, the maintenance operations on the VM that are
>> needed for this and the contention that both of those will cause.

> I agree that we need to do tests to demonstrate that there's a gain from
> the patch, once we have a patch to test. I would be very surprised if
> there isn't, but that just means the testing is going to be easy.

I think Simon's point is that showing a gain on specific test cases
isn't a sufficient argument. What we need to know about this sort of
change is what is the distributed overhead that is going to be paid by
*everybody*, whether their queries benefit from the optimization or not.
And what fraction of real-world queries really do benefit, and to what
extent. Isolated test cases (undoubtedly chosen to show off the
optimization) are not adequate to form a picture of the overall cost and
benefit.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2011-05-11 14:45:08 Re: the big picture for index-only scans
Previous Message Albe Laurenz 2011-05-11 14:40:49 Fix for bug in ldapServiceLookup in libpq