Re: [HACKERS] Resurrecting per-page cleaner for

Tom, should I apply this patch now? Are you still considering other
options for this?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> Tom, I ran your tests with fsync off (as you did), and saw numbers
> bouncing between 400-700 tps without my patch, and sticking at 700 tps
> with my patch.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> > The attached patch requires the new row to fit, and 10% to be free on
> > the page. Would someone test that?
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> > > ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > > > This is a revised patch originated by Junji TERAMOTO for HEAD.
> > > > [BTree vacuum before page splitting]
> > > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2006-01/msg00301.php
> > > > I think we can resurrect his idea because we will scan btree pages
> > > > at-atime now; the missing-restarting-point problem went away.
> > >
> > > I've applied this but I'm now having some second thoughts about it,
> > > because I'm seeing an actual *decrease* in pgbench numbers from the
> > > immediately prior CVS HEAD code. Using
> > > pgbench -i -s 10 bench
> > > pgbench -c 10 -t 1000 bench (repeat this half a dozen times)
> > > with fsync off but all other settings factory-stock, what I'm seeing
> > > is that the first run looks really good but subsequent runs tail off in
> > > spectacular fashion :-( Pre-patch there was only minor degradation in
> > > successive runs.
> > >
> > > What I think is happening is that because pgbench depends so heavily on
> > > updating existing records, we get into a state where an index page is
> > > about full and there's one dead tuple on it, and then for each insertion
> > > we have
> > >
> > > * check for uniqueness marks one more tuple dead (the
> > > next-to-last version of the tuple)
> > > * newly added code removes one tuple and does a write
> > > * now there's enough room to insert one tuple
> > > * lather, rinse, repeat, never splitting the page.
> > >
> > > The problem is that we've traded splitting a page every few hundred
> > > inserts for doing a PageIndexMultiDelete, and emitting an extra WAL
> > > record, on *every* insert. This is not good.
> > >
> > > Had you done any performance testing on this patch, and if so what
> > > tests did you use? I'm a bit hesitant to try to fix it on the basis
> > > of pgbench results alone.
> > >
> > > One possible fix that comes to mind is to only perform the cleanup
> > > if we are able to remove more than one dead tuple (perhaps about 10
> > > would be good). Or do the deletion anyway, but then go ahead and
> > > split the page unless X amount of space has been freed (where X is
> > > more than just barely enough for the incoming tuple).
> > >
> > > After all the thought we've put into this, it seems a shame to
> > > just abandon it :-(. But it definitely needs more tweaking.
> > >
> > > regards, tom lane
> > >
> > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
> > >
> > > http://archives.postgresql.org
> >
> > --
> > Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
> > EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
> >
> > + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
>
>
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>
> --
> Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
> EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
>
> + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +