Re: Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE
Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro <lamigo@atc.unican.es>
From: "Luis Alberto Amigo Navarro" <lamigo@atc.unican.es>
To: "Lincoln Yeoh" <lyeoh@pop.jaring.my>, "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, <bruc@acm.org>, "Igor Kovalenko" <Igor.Kovalenko@motorola.com>
Cc: "mlw" <markw@mohawksoft.com>, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>, "Andrew Sullivan" <andrew@libertyrms.info>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2002-04-22T11:58:52Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Attachments
I will use this thread to throw a question I threw time ago but was unresolved, I think it is very close with this thread, cause we can't talk about indexes and seqscans without talk about indexes performance, I've to apologize if someone thinks that it's off-topic. Index usage has a big contention problem when running on large SMP boxes, here are the results from running on an 8 r10000 200MHz, I've sized the database in order to be 100% cachable by OS in order to compare memory performance with seq_scan an index_scan, lately I've reduced random_page_cost first to 0.5 and finally to 0.1 to force postgres to use indexes, in both executions 1 only stream(on left in the graph) is faster than in random_page_cost=4, but more than one stream results in high contention rate. These are results from tpc-h(1 first stream of 22 queries followed for s parallel streams of same queries other order with refresh functions in progress) Orange shows CPU waiting for resources, what means stopped at a sem(it's odd because all queries are read-only). first of all is rpg=4(less time 8 streams than first(no loads)), second=0.5(about twice the parallel than first stream) third=0.1(five times parallel than first stream). I've marked where the first stream ends and starts the parallel test.