|From:||"Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>|
|To:||'Alvaro Herrera' <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>|
|Cc:||David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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]
> On 2019-Sep-03, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> > 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.
> I don't necessarily disagree with your argumentation, but Travis is
> complaining thusly:
I tried to revise David's latest patch (v8) and address Tom's comments in his last mail. But I'm a bit at a loss.
First, to accurately count the maximum number of acquired locks in a transaction, we need to track the maximum entries in the hash table, and make it available via a new function like hash_get_max_entries(). However, to cover the shared partitioned hash table (that is not necessary for LockMethodLocalHash), we must add a spin lock in hashhdr and lock/unlock it when entering and removing entries in the hash table. It spoils the effort to decrease contention by hashhdr->freelists.mutex. Do we want to track the maximum number of acquired locks in the global variable in lock.c, not in the hash table?
Second, I couldn't understand the comment about the fill factor well. I can understand that it's not correct to compare the number of hash buckets and the number of locks. But what can we do?
I'm sorry to repeat what I mentioned in my previous mail, but my v2 patch's approach is based on the database textbook and seems intuitive. So I attached the rebased version.
|Next Message||Konstantin Knizhnik||2019-09-26 07:17:09||Re: Built-in connection pooler|
|Previous Message||Konstantin Knizhnik||2019-09-26 07:05:23||Re: Global temporary tables|