On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>> Moreover this whole business of not treating hint-bit setting as
>>> a page-dirtying operation is completely experimental/unproven IMO, so it
>>> would be better to keep the patch footprint as small as possible.
>
>> I have some concerns about that proposal, but it might be the right
>> way to go. Before we get too far off into the weeds, though, let's
>> back up and talk about something more fundamental: this seems to be
>> speeding up the first run by 6x at the expense of slowing down many
>> subsequent runs by 10-15%. Does that make this whole idea dead on
>> arrival?
>
> Well, it reinforces my opinion that it's experimental ;-). But "first
> run" of what, exactly?
See the test case in my OP. The "runs" in question are "select sum(1) from s".
> And are you sure you're taking a wholistic view
> of the costs/benefits?
No.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
