From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Hamid Akhtar <hamid(dot)akhtar(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2020-08-17 09:21:41 |
Message-ID: | 773565c1-6508-063a-8872-20c16d283ee8@oss.nttdata.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020/07/31 21:40, Hamid Akhtar wrote:
> <https://commitfest.postgresql.org/29/2634/>
>
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 10:29 AM Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com <mailto:masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2020/07/04 12:22, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >
> >
> > pá 3. 7. 2020 v 13:02 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 2020/07/03 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> <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 <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 2020/07/03 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>> <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 <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> <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 <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>> <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 <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> <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 <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.
> >
> >
> > +1
>
> Thanks for the review! Pushed.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Fujii Masao
> Advanced Computing Technology Center
> Research and Development Headquarters
> NTT DATA CORPORATION
>
>
>
> You might also want to update this patch's status in the commitfest:
> https://commitfest.postgresql.org/29/2634/
The patch added into this CF entry has not been committed yet.
So I was thinking that there is no need to update the status yet. No?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hamid Akhtar | 2020-08-17 09:34:18 | Re: track_planning causing performance regression |
Previous Message | Hamid Akhtar | 2020-08-17 09:18:56 | Re: COPY FREEZE and setting PD_ALL_VISIBLE/visibility map bits |