|From:||"Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>|
|To:||'Alvaro Herrera' <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|Cc:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "Imai, Yoshikazu" <imai(dot)yoshikazu(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||RE: Speed up transaction completion faster after many relations are accessed in a transaction|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
From: Alvaro Herrera [mailto:alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com]
> Hmm ... is this patch rejected, or is somebody still trying to get it to
> committable state? David, you're listed as committer.
I don't think it's rejected. It would be a pity (mottainai) to refuse this, because it provides significant speedup despite its simple modification.
Again, I think the v2 patch is OK. Tom's comment was as follows:
[Tom's comment against v2]
FWIW, I tried this patch against current HEAD (959d00e9d).
Using the test case described by Amit at
I do measure an undeniable speedup, close to 35%.
However ... I submit that that's a mighty extreme test case.
(I had to increase max_locks_per_transaction to get it to run
at all.) We should not be using that sort of edge case to drive
performance optimization choices.
If I reduce the number of partitions in Amit's example from 8192
to something more real-world, like 128, I do still measure a
performance gain, but it's ~ 1.5% which is below what I'd consider
a reproducible win. I'm accustomed to seeing changes up to 2%
in narrow benchmarks like this one, even when "nothing changes"
except unrelated code.
Trying a standard pgbench test case (pgbench -M prepared -S with
one client and an -s 10 database), it seems that the patch is about
0.5% slower than HEAD. Again, that's below the noise threshold,
but it's not promising for the net effects of this patch on workloads
that aren't specifically about large and prunable partition sets.
I'm also fairly concerned about the effects of the patch on
sizeof(LOCALLOCK) --- on a 64-bit machine it goes from 72 to 88
bytes, a 22% increase. That's a lot if you're considering cases
with many locks.
On the whole I don't think there's an adequate case for committing
I'd also point out that this is hardly the only place where we've
seen hash_seq_search on nearly-empty hash tables become a bottleneck.
So I'm not thrilled about attacking that with one-table-at-time patches.
I'd rather see us do something to let hash_seq_search win across
* Extreme test case:
Not extreme. Two of our customers, who are considering to use PostgreSQL, are using thousands of partitions now. We hit this issue -- a point query gets nearly 20% slower after automatically creating a generic plan. That's the reason for this proposal.
* 0.5% slowdown with pgbench:
I think it's below the noise, as Tom said.
As Andres replied to Tom in the immediately following mail, LOCALLOCK was bigger in PG 11.
* Use case is narrow:
No. The bloated LockMethodLocalHash affects the performance of the items below as well as transaction commit/abort:
- AtPrepare_Locks() and PostPrepare_Locks(): the hash table is scanned twice in PREPARE!
- LockReleaseSession: advisory lock
- LockReleaseCurrentOwner: ??
- LockReassignCurrentOwner: ??
|Next Message||Thomas Munro||2019-09-03 05:43:57||Re: SIGQUIT on archiver child processes maybe not such a hot idea?|
|Previous Message||Masahiko Sawada||2019-09-03 04:59:00||Re: [HACKERS] CLUSTER command progress monitor|