Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alena Rybakina
Subject Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes
Date
Msg-id b04494f2-9d57-bbeb-a79f-0653ab62712e@yandex.ru
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: POC, WIP: OR-clause support for indexes  (Alena Rybakina <lena.ribackina@yandex.ru>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 27.06.2023 16:19, Alena Rybakina wrote:
Thank you for your feedback, your work is also very interesting and important, and I will be happy to review it. I learned something new from your letter, thank you very much for that!

I analyzed the buffer consumption when I ran control regression tests using my patch. diff shows me that there is no difference between the number of buffer block scans without and using my patch, as far as I have seen. (regression.diffs)


In addition, I analyzed the scheduling and duration of the execution time of the source code and with my applied patch. I generated 20 billion data from pgbench and plotted the scheduling and execution time depending on the number of "or" expressions.
By runtime, I noticed a clear acceleration for queries when using the index, but I can't say the same when the index is disabled.
At first I turned it off in this way:
1)enable_seqscan='off'
2)enable_indexonlyscan='off'
enable_indexscan='off'

Unfortunately, it is not yet clear which constant needs to be set when the transformation needs to be done, I will still study in detail. (the graph for all this is presented in graph1.svg)
\\
-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Sorry, just now I noticed that there were incorrect names in the headings of the pictures, I corrected it. I also attach its html copy, because it may be more convenient for viewing it.
-- 
Regards,
Alena Rybakina
Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: ReadRecentBuffer() doesn't scale well
Next
From: Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Honor PG_TEST_NOCLEAN for tempdirs