Not yet, there's still one issue that needs fixing.
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Great. Based on this, do you have a patch that is ready to apply.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>>> In any case, I'd like to see more test results before we make a
>>> decision. I'm running tests with DBT-2 and a seq scan running in the
>>> background to see if the cache-spoiling effect shows up. I'm also trying
>>> to get hold of some bigger hardware to run on. Running these tests takes
>>> some calendar time, but the hard work has already been done. I'm going
>>> to start reviewing Jeff's synchronized scans patch now.
>> Here are the results of the DBT-2 tests:
>>
>> http://community.enterprisedb.com/seqscan/imola/
>>
>> In each of these tests, at the end of rampup a script is started that
>> issues a "SELECT COUNT(*) FROM stock" in a loop, with 2 minute delay
>> between end of previous query and start of next one.
>>
>> The patch makes the seq scans go significantly faster. In the 1 hour
>> test period, the patched tests perform roughly 30-100% as many selects
>> as unpatched tests.
>>
>> With 100 and 105 warehouses, it also significantly reduces the impact of
>> the seq scan on other queries; response times are lower with the patch.
>> With 120 warehouses the reduction of impact is not as clear, but when
>> you plot the response times it's still there (the plots on the "response
>> times charts"-page are useless because they're overwhelmed by the
>> checkpoint spike).
>>
>> --
>> Heikki Linnakangas
>> EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
>>
>> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
