Re: [PERFORM] encouraging index-only scans - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: [PERFORM] encouraging index-only scans
Date
Msg-id CAEYLb_U1dTg=bXkDL=yvFTrMw5oC13ivgZA=jdQXnbgaDJ+e-Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PERFORM] encouraging index-only scans  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [PERFORM] encouraging index-only scans
List pgsql-hackers
On 13 December 2012 03:51, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> ANALYZE does not set that value, and is not going to start doing so,
> because it doesn't scan enough of the table to derive a trustworthy
> value.

I'm slightly surprised by your remarks here, because the commit
message where the relallvisible column was added (commit
a2822fb9337a21f98ac4ce850bb4145acf47ca27) says:

"Add a column pg_class.relallvisible to remember the number of pages
that were all-visible according to the visibility map as of the last
VACUUM
(or ANALYZE, or some other operations that update pg_class.relpages).
Use relallvisible/relpages, instead of an arbitrary constant, to
estimate how many heap page fetches can be avoided during an
index-only scan."

Have I missed some nuance?

-- 
Peter Geoghegan       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Merlin Moncure
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP patch for hint bit i/o mitigation
Next
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH 02/14] Add support for a generic wal reading facility dubbed XLogReader