Re: Performance degradation of REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW

From: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Paul Guo <guopa(at)vmware(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Performance degradation of REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW
Date: 2021-04-27 13:43:07
Message-ID: 5d5162b9-9ed9-d356-75dd-4268eec897d6@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 4/27/21 7:34 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 8:07 AM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 2021-04-26 23:59:17 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>> On 4/26/21 9:27 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>>>> On 2021-04-26 15:31:02 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>>>> I'm not sure what to do about this :-( I don't have any ideas about how to
>>>>> eliminate this overhead, so the only option I see is reverting the changes
>>>>> in heap_insert. Unfortunately, that'd mean inserts into TOAST tables won't
>>>>> be frozen ...
>>>>
>>>> ISTM that the fundamental issue here is not that we acquire pins that we
>>>> shouldn't, but that we do so at a much higher frequency than needed.
>>>>
>>>> It's probably too invasive for 14, but I think it might be worth exploring
>>>> passing down a BulkInsertState in nodeModifyTable.c's table_tuple_insert() iff
>>>> the input will be more than one row.
>>>>
>>>> And then add the vm buffer of the target page to BulkInsertState, so that
>>>> hio.c can avoid re-pinning the buffer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah. The question still is what to do about 14, though. Shall we leave the
>>> code as it is now, or should we change it somehow? It seem a bit unfortunate
>>> that a COPY FREEZE optimization should negatively influence other (more)
>>> common use cases, so I guess we can't just keep the current code ...
>>
>> I'd suggest prototyping the use of BulkInsertState in nodeModifyTable.c
>> and see whether that fixes the regression.
>
> Is this idea to have RelationGetBufferForTuple() skip re-pinning
> vmbuffer? If so, is this essentially the same as the one in the v3
> patch?
>

I don't think it is the same approach - it's a bit hard to follow what
exactly happens in RelationGetBufferForTuple, but AFAICS it always
starts with vmbuffer = InvalidBuffer, so it may pin the vmbuffer quite
often, no?

What Andres is suggesting (I think) is to modify ExecInsert() to pass a
valid bistate to table_tuple_insert, instead of just NULL, and store the
vmbuffer in it. Not sure how to identify when inserting more than just a
single row, though ...

regards

--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2021-04-27 13:51:25 Re: Attach to shared memory after fork()
Previous Message Bharath Rupireddy 2021-04-27 13:38:19 Re: Skip temporary table schema name from explain-verbose output.