Re: track_planning causing performance regression

From: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tharakan, Robins" <tharar(at)amazon(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: track_planning causing performance regression
Date: 2020-07-03 11:02:03
Message-ID: 73b66e99-b4f3-9c4e-3b70-157ddbe81771@oss.nttdata.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2020/07/03 16:02, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>
> pá 3. 7. 2020 v 8:57 odesílatel Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com <mailto:masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>> napsal:
>
>
>
> On 2020/07/03 13:05, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > pá 3. 7. 2020 v 4:39 odesílatel Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com <mailto:masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> <mailto:masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com <mailto:masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>>> napsal:
> >
> >
> >
> >     On 2020/07/01 7:37, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> >      > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 6:40 AM Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com <mailto:masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> <mailto:masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com <mailto:masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>>> wrote:
> >      >> Ants and Andres suggested to replace the spinlock used in pgss_store() with
> >      >> LWLock. I agreed with them and posted the POC patch doing that. But I think
> >      >> the patch is an item for v14. The patch may address the reported performance
> >      >> issue, but may cause other performance issues in other workloads. We would
> >      >> need to measure how the patch affects the performance in various workloads.
> >      >> It seems too late to do that at this stage of v13. Thought?
> >      >
> >      > I agree that it's too late for v13.
> >
> >     Thanks for the comment!
> >
> >     So I pushed the patch and changed default of track_planning to off.
> >
> >
> > Maybe there can be documented so enabling this option can have a negative impact on performance.
>
> Yes. What about adding either of the followings into the doc?
>
>      Enabling this parameter may incur a noticeable performance penalty.
>
> or
>
>      Enabling this parameter may incur a noticeable performance penalty,
>      especially when a fewer kinds of queries are executed on many
>      concurrent connections.
>
>
> This second variant looks perfect for this case.

Ok, so patch attached.

Regards,

--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION

Attachment Content-Type Size
document_overhead_by_track_planning.patch text/plain 669 bytes

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Masahiko Sawada 2020-07-03 11:48:00 Re: Cleanup - Removed unused function parameter in reorder buffer & parallel vacuum
Previous Message Daniel Gustafsson 2020-07-03 10:34:39 Re: Cache lookup errors with functions manipulation object addresses