From: Jan de Visser <jdevisser@digitalfairway.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: I/O on select count(*)
Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 09:15:40 -0400
Message-ID: <200805150915.40793.jdevisser@digitalfairway.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <28324.1210834939@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <920841.71690.qm@web44808.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
<1159c1e90805141938j5f85b490rb5c1cfdf9e428bce@mail.gmail.com>
<28324.1210834939@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On Thursday 15 May 2008 03:02:19 Tom Lane wrote:
> "Jan de Visser" <jdevisser@digitalfairway.com> writes:
> > Obviously, this issue is tied to the slow count(*) one, as I found out
> > the hard way. Consider the following scenario:
> > * Insert row
> > * Update that row a couple of times
> > * Rinse and repeat many times
> >
> > Now somewhere during that cycle, do a select count(*) just to see
> > where you are. You will be appalled by how slow that is, due to not
> > only the usual 'slow count(*)' reasons. This whole hint bit business
> > makes it even worse, as demonstrated by the fact that running a vacuum
> > before the count(*) makes the latter noticably faster.
>
> Uh, well, you can't blame that entirely on hint-bit updates. The vacuum
> has simply *removed* two-thirds of the rows in the system, resulting in
> a large drop in the number of rows that the select even has to look at.
>
> It's certainly true that hint-bit updates cost something, but
> quantifying how much isn't easy. The off-the-cuff answer is to do the
> select count(*) twice and see how much cheaper the second one is. But
> there are two big holes in that answer: the first is the possible cache
> effects from having already read in the pages, and the second is that
> the follow-up scan gets to avoid the visits to pg_clog that the first
> scan had to make (which after all is the point of the hint bits).
>
> I don't know any easy way to disambiguate the three effects that are at
> work here. But blaming it all on the costs of writing out hint-bit
> updates is wrong.
>
> regards, tom lane
True. But it still contributes to the fact that queries sometimes behave in a
non-deterministic way, which IMHO is the major annoyance when starting to
work with pgsql. And contrary to other causes (vacuum, checkpoints) this is
woefully underdocumented.
jan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: jdevisser@digitalfairway.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, gsmith@gregsmith.com, alvherre@commandprompt.com
Subject: Re: I/O on select count(*)
In-Reply-To: <200805150915.40793.jdevisser@digitalfairway.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox