Re: HOT pgbench results - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: HOT pgbench results
Date
Msg-id 1186514113.4192.47.camel@ebony.site
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: HOT pgbench results  (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 15:40 +0100, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> >>         unpatched    HOT    
> >> autovacuums    116        43
> >> autoanalyzes    139        60
> > 
> >> HOT greatly reduces the number of vacuums needed. That's good, that's
> >> where the gains in throughput in longer I/O bound runs comes from.
> > 
> > But surely failing to auto-analyze after a HOT update is a bad thing.
> 
> Hmm, I suppose. I don't think we've spend any time thinking about how to
> factor in HOT updates into the autovacuum and autoanalyze formulas yet.

> I'd argue that HOT updates are not as significant as cold ones from
> statistics point of view, though, because they don't change indexed
> columns. HOT-updated fields are not likely used as primary search quals.

I agree with that thought, but the changes to unindexed fields are just
as important for selectivity calculations so we should ANALYZE just as
frequently. ANALYZE is cheap, so we aren't saving anything by avoiding
them.

--  Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB  http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Gregory Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Template zero xid issue
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: HOT patch, missing things