RE: speeding up planning with partitions

From: "Imai, Yoshikazu" <imai(dot)yoshikazu(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>
To: 'Amit Langote' <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, 'Amit Langote' <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>
Subject: RE: speeding up planning with partitions
Date: 2019-03-20 03:15:14
Message-ID: 0F97FA9ABBDBE54F91744A9B37151A512B45CD@g01jpexmbkw24
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Amit-san,

On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 3:01 PM, Amit Langote wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 2:34 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
> >> On 2019/03/20 11:21, Imai, Yoshikazu wrote:
> >>> (4)
> >>> We expect the performance does not depend on the number of
> >>> partitions
> >> after applying all patches, if possible.
> >>>
> >>> num of part TPS
> >>> ----------- -----
> >>> 1024 7,257 (7274, 7246, 7252)
> >>> 2048 6,718 (6627, 6780, 6747)
> >>> 4096 6,472 (6434, 6565, 6416) (quoted from above (3)'s
> results)
> >>> 8192 6,008 (6018, 5999, 6007)
> >>>
> >>> It seems the performance still depend on the number of partitions.
> >>> At
> >> the moment, I don't have any idea what cause this problem but can we
> >> improve this more?
> >>
> >> I've noticed [1] this kind of degradation when the server is built
> >> with Asserts enabled. Did you?
> >> ...
> >> [1]
> >>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/a49372b6-c044-4ac8-84ea-90ad18
> >> b1770d%40lab.ntt.co.jp
> >
> > No. I did test again from configuring without --enable-cassert but
> problem I mentioned still happens.
>
> Hmm, OK. Can you describe your test setup with more details?

Here the details.

[creating partitioned tables (with 1024 partitions)]
drop table if exists rt;
create table rt (a int, b int, c int) partition by range (a);
\o /dev/null
select 'create table rt' || x::text || ' partition of rt for values from (' ||
(x)::text || ') to (' || (x+1)::text || ');' from generate_series(1, 1024) x;
\gexec
\o

[select1024.sql]
\set a random (1, 1024)
select * from rt where a = :a;

[pgbench]
pgbench -n -f select1024.sql -T 60

What I noticed so far is that it also might depends on the query. I created table with 8192 partitions and did select statements like "select * from a = :a (which ranges from 1 to 1024)" and "select * from a = :a (which ranges from 1 to 8192)", and the results of those were different.

I'll send perf to off-list.

--
Yoshikazu Imai

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Euler Taveira 2019-03-20 03:27:48 Re: Special role for subscriptions
Previous Message Tsunakawa, Takayuki 2019-03-20 03:15:04 RE: [survey] New "Stable" QueryId based on normalized query text