Re: autovac issue with large number of tables

On 2020/11/27 18:38, Kasahara Tatsuhito wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 1:43 AM Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2020/11/26 10:41, Kasahara Tatsuhito wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 8:46 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 4:18 PM Kasahara Tatsuhito
>>>> <kasahara(dot)tatsuhito(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 2:17 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 7:50 PM Kasahara Tatsuhito
>>>>>> <kasahara(dot)tatsuhito(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 2:10 AM Kasahara Tatsuhito
>>>>>>> <kasahara(dot)tatsuhito(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I wonder if we could have table_recheck_autovac do two probes of the stats
>>>>>>>>> data. First probe the existing stats data, and if it shows the table to
>>>>>>>>> be already vacuumed, return immediately. If not, *then* force a stats
>>>>>>>>> re-read, and check a second time.
>>>>>>>> Does the above mean that the second and subsequent table_recheck_autovac()
>>>>>>>> will be improved to first check using the previous refreshed statistics?
>>>>>>>> I think that certainly works.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If that's correct, I'll try to create a patch for the PoC
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I still don't know how to reproduce Jim's troubles, but I was able to reproduce
>>>>>>> what was probably a very similar problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This problem seems to be more likely to occur in cases where you have
>>>>>>> a large number of tables,
>>>>>>> i.e., a large amount of stats, and many small tables need VACUUM at
>>>>>>> the same time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I followed Tom's advice and created a patch for the PoC.
>>>>>>> This patch will enable a flag in the table_recheck_autovac function to use
>>>>>>> the existing stats next time if VACUUM (or ANALYZE) has already been done
>>>>>>> by another worker on the check after the stats have been updated.
>>>>>>> If the tables continue to require VACUUM after the refresh, then a refresh
>>>>>>> will be required instead of using the existing statistics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I did simple test with HEAD and HEAD + this PoC patch.
>>>>>>> The tests were conducted in two cases.
>>>>>>> (I changed few configurations. see attached scripts)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. Normal VACUUM case
>>>>>>> - SET autovacuum = off
>>>>>>> - CREATE tables with 100 rows
>>>>>>> - DELETE 90 rows for each tables
>>>>>>> - SET autovacuum = on and restart PostgreSQL
>>>>>>> - Measure the time it takes for all tables to be VACUUMed
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. Anti wrap round VACUUM case
>>>>>>> - CREATE brank tables
>>>>>>> - SELECT all of these tables (for generate stats)
>>>>>>> - SET autovacuum_freeze_max_age to low values and restart PostgreSQL
>>>>>>> - Consumes a lot of XIDs by using txid_curent()
>>>>>>> - Measure the time it takes for all tables to be VACUUMed
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For each test case, the following results were obtained by changing
>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers parameters to 1, 2, 3(def) 5 and 10.
>>>>>>> Also changing num of tables to 1000, 5000, 10000 and 20000.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Due to the poor VM environment (2 VCPU/4 GB), the results are a little unstable,
>>>>>>> but I think it's enough to ask for a trend.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ===========================================================================
>>>>>>> [1.Normal VACUUM case]
>>>>>>> tables:1000
>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 1: (HEAD) 20 sec VS (with patch) 20 sec
>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 2: (HEAD) 18 sec VS (with patch) 16 sec
>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 3: (HEAD) 18 sec VS (with patch) 16 sec
>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 5: (HEAD) 19 sec VS (with patch) 17 sec
>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 10: (HEAD) 19 sec VS (with patch) 17 sec
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> tables:5000
>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 1: (HEAD) 77 sec VS (with patch) 78 sec
>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 2: (HEAD) 61 sec VS (with patch) 43 sec
>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 3: (HEAD) 38 sec VS (with patch) 38 sec
>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 5: (HEAD) 45 sec VS (with patch) 37 sec
>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 10: (HEAD) 43 sec VS (with patch) 35 sec
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> tables:10000
>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 1: (HEAD) 152 sec VS (with patch) 153 sec
>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 2: (HEAD) 119 sec VS (with patch) 98 sec
>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 3: (HEAD) 87 sec VS (with patch) 78 sec
>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 5: (HEAD) 100 sec VS (with patch) 66 sec
>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 10: (HEAD) 97 sec VS (with patch) 56 sec
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> tables:20000
>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 1: (HEAD) 338 sec VS (with patch) 339 sec
>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 2: (HEAD) 231 sec VS (with patch) 229 sec
>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 3: (HEAD) 220 sec VS (with patch) 191 sec
>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 5: (HEAD) 234 sec VS (with patch) 147 sec
>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 10: (HEAD) 320 sec VS (with patch) 113 sec
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [2.Anti wrap round VACUUM case]
>>>>>>> tables:1000
>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 1: (HEAD) 19 sec VS (with patch) 18 sec
>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 2: (HEAD) 14 sec VS (with patch) 15 sec
>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 3: (HEAD) 14 sec VS (with patch) 14 sec
>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 5: (HEAD) 14 sec VS (with patch) 16 sec
>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 10: (HEAD) 16 sec VS (with patch) 14 sec
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> tables:5000
>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 1: (HEAD) 69 sec VS (with patch) 69 sec
>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 2: (HEAD) 66 sec VS (with patch) 47 sec
>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 3: (HEAD) 59 sec VS (with patch) 37 sec
>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 5: (HEAD) 39 sec VS (with patch) 28 sec
>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 10: (HEAD) 39 sec VS (with patch) 29 sec
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> tables:10000
>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 1: (HEAD) 139 sec VS (with patch) 138 sec
>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 2: (HEAD) 130 sec VS (with patch) 86 sec
>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 3: (HEAD) 120 sec VS (with patch) 68 sec
>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 5: (HEAD) 96 sec VS (with patch) 41 sec
>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 10: (HEAD) 90 sec VS (with patch) 39 sec
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> tables:20000
>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 1: (HEAD) 313 sec VS (with patch) 331 sec
>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 2: (HEAD) 209 sec VS (with patch) 201 sec
>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 3: (HEAD) 227 sec VS (with patch) 141 sec
>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 5: (HEAD) 236 sec VS (with patch) 88 sec
>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 10: (HEAD) 309 sec VS (with patch) 74 sec
>>>>>>> ===========================================================================
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The cases without patch, the scalability of the worker has decreased
>>>>>>> as the number of tables has increased.
>>>>>>> In fact, the more workers there are, the longer it takes to complete
>>>>>>> VACUUM to all tables.
>>>>>>> The cases with patch, it shows good scalability with respect to the
>>>>>>> number of workers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It seems a good performance improvement even without the patch of
>>>>>> shared memory based stats collector.
>>
>> Sounds great!
>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note that perf top results showed that hash_search_with_hash_value,
>>>>>>> hash_seq_search and
>>>>>>> pgstat_read_statsfiles are dominant during VACUUM in all patterns,
>>>>>>> with or without the patch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Therefore, there is still a need to find ways to optimize the reading
>>>>>>> of large amounts of stats.
>>>>>>> However, this patch is effective in its own right, and since there are
>>>>>>> only a few parts to modify,
>>>>>>> I think it should be able to be applied to current (preferably
>>>>>>> pre-v13) PostgreSQL.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + /* We might be better to refresh stats */
>>>>>> + use_existing_stats = false;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> + else
>>>>>> + {
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - heap_freetuple(classTup);
>>>>>> + heap_freetuple(classTup);
>>>>>> + /* The relid has already vacuumed, so we might be better to
>>>>>> use exiting stats */
>>>>>> + use_existing_stats = true;
>>>>>> + }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With that patch, the autovacuum process refreshes the stats in the
>>>>>> next check if it finds out that the table still needs to be vacuumed.
>>>>>> But I guess it's not necessarily true because the next table might be
>>>>>> vacuumed already. So I think we might want to always use the existing
>>>>>> for the first check. What do you think?
>>>>> Thanks for your comment.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we assume the case where some workers vacuum on large tables
>>>>> and a single worker vacuum on small tables, the processing
>>>>> performance of the single worker will be slightly lower if the
>>>>> existing statistics are checked every time.
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact, at first I tried to check the existing stats every time,
>>>>> but the performance was slightly worse in cases with a small number of workers.
>>
>> Do you have this benchmark result?
>>
>>
>>>>> (Checking the existing stats is lightweight , but at high frequency,
>>>>> it affects processing performance.)
>>>>> Therefore, at after refresh statistics, determine whether autovac
>>>>> should use the existing statistics.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, since the test you used uses a lot of small tables, if there are
>>>> a few workers, checking the existing stats is unlikely to return true
>>>> (no need to vacuum). So the cost of existing stats check ends up being
>>>> overhead. Not sure how slow always checking the existing stats was,
>>>> but given that the shared memory based stats collector patch could
>>>> improve the performance of refreshing stats, it might be better not to
>>>> check the existing stats frequently like the patch does. Anyway, I
>>>> think it’s better to evaluate the performance improvement with other
>>>> cases too.
>>> Yeah, I would like to see how much the performance changes in other cases.
>>> In addition, if the shared-based-stats patch is applied, we won't need to reload
>>> a huge stats file, so we will just have to check the stats on
>>> shared-mem every time.
>>> Perhaps the logic of table_recheck_autovac could be simpler.
>>>
>>>>> BTW, I found some typos in comments, so attache a fixed version.
>>
>> The patch adds some duplicated codes into table_recheck_autovac().
>> It's better to make the common function performing them and make
>> table_recheck_autovac() call that common function, to simplify the code.
> Thanks for your comment.
> Hmm.. I've cut out the duplicate part.
> Attach the patch.
> Could you confirm that it fits your expecting?

Yes, thanks for updataing the patch! Here are another review comments.

+ shared = pgstat_fetch_stat_dbentry(InvalidOid);
+ dbentry = pgstat_fetch_stat_dbentry(MyDatabaseId);

When using the existing stats, ISTM that these are not necessary and
we can reuse "shared" and "dbentry" obtained before. Right?

+ /* We might be better to refresh stats */
+ use_existing_stats = false;

I think that we should add more comments about why it's better to
refresh the stats in this case.

+ /* The relid has already vacuumed, so we might be better to use existing stats */
+ use_existing_stats = true;

I think that we should add more comments about why it's better to
reuse the stats in this case.

Regards,

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