Tom Lane wrote:
> I've committed the HOT patch.
Thanks, much easier to work with it now that it's in.
> I'd still like to think about whether we
> can be smarter about when to invoke pruning, but that's a small enough
> issue that the patch can go in without it.
Yeah. I'm doing some micro-benchmarking, and the attached test case is
much slower with HOT. It's spending a lot of time trying to prune, only
to find out that it can't.
Instead of/in addition to avoiding pruning when it doesn't help, maybe
we could make HeapTupleSatisfiesVacuum cheaper.
I'm going to continue testing, this is just a heads-up that HOT as
committed seriously hurts performance in some cases. (though one can
argue that this test case isn't a very realistic one.)
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
DROP TABLE IF EXISTS testtable;
CREATE TABLE testtable (key integer);
-- Note that there's no indexes, so updates have to do a seq scan.
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION testfunc(data int, key1 int) RETURNS int AS $$
DECLARE
BEGIN
FOR cnt IN 1..10000 LOOP
UPDATE testtable SET key = data WHERE key = key1;
END LOOP;
RETURN 1;
END;
$$ LANGUAGE plpgsql;
INSERT INTO testtable VALUES (1);
BEGIN;
SELECT testfunc(1,1);
COMMIT;
