Re: WIP: Avoid creation of the free space map for small tables - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: WIP: Avoid creation of the free space map for small tables
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1J89ietFbVjn3ta-BnHD+g+pOouTmbrm-w2TxA81A0dWQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: WIP: Avoid creation of the free space map for small tables  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 5:56 AM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 02, 2018 at 10:38:45AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > I think it's in evidence, in the form of several messages mentioning a
> > flag called try_every_block.
> >
> > Just checking the last page of the table doesn't sound like a good
> > idea to me.  I think that will just lead to a lot of stupid bloat.  It
> > seems likely that checking every page of the table is fine for npages
> > <= 3, and that would still be win in a very significant number of
> > cases, since lots of instances have many empty or tiny tables.  I was
> > merely reacting to the suggestion that the approach should be used for
> > npages <= 32; that threshold sounds way too high.
>
> It seems to me that it would be costly for schemas which have one core
> table with a couple of records used in many joins with other queries.
> Imagine for example a core table like that:
> CREATE TABLE us_states (id serial, initials varchar(2));
> INSERT INTO us_states VALUES (DEFAULT, 'CA');
>
> If there is a workload where those initials need to be fetched a lot,
> this patch could cause a loss.
>

How alone fetching would cause any loss? If it gets updated, then
there is a chance that we might have some performance impact.

>  It looks hard to me to put a straight
> number on when not having the FSM is better than having it because that
> could be environment-dependent, so there is an argument for making the
> default very low, still configurable?
>

I think 3 or 4 as threshold should work fine (though we need to
thoroughly test that) as we will anyway avoid having three additional
pages of FSM for such tables.  I am not sure how easy it would be for
users to set this value if we make it configurable or on what basis
can they configure?

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrey Lepikhov
Date:
Subject: Re: Making all nbtree entries unique by having heap TIDs participatein comparisons
Next
From: Edmund Horner
Date:
Subject: Re: Tid scan improvements