Re: Split index and table statistics into different types of stats

Hi,

On 11/13/23 9:44 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2023-11-13 09:26:56 +0100, Drouvot, Bertrand wrote:
>> --- a/src/backend/storage/buffer/bufmgr.c
>> +++ b/src/backend/storage/buffer/bufmgr.c
>> @@ -799,11 +799,19 @@ ReadBufferExtended(Relation reln, ForkNumber forkNum, BlockNumber blockNum,
>> * Read the buffer, and update pgstat counters to reflect a cache hit or
>> * miss.
>> */
>> - pgstat_count_buffer_read(reln);
>> + if (reln->rd_rel->relkind == RELKIND_INDEX)
>> + pgstat_count_index_buffer_read(reln);
>> + else
>> + pgstat_count_table_buffer_read(reln);
>
> It's not nice from a layering POV that we need this level of awareness in
> bufmgr.c. I wonder if this is an argument for first splitting out stats like
> blocks_hit, blocks_fetched into something like "relfilenode stats" - they're
> agnostic of the relkind.

Thanks for looking at it! Yeah I think that would make a lot of sense
to track some stats per relfilenode.

> There aren't that many such stats right now,
> admittedly, but I think we'll want to also track dirtied, written blocks on a
> per relation basis once we can (i.e. we key the relevant stats by relfilenode
> instead of oid, so we can associate stats when writing out buffers).
>
>

Agree. Then, I think that would make sense to start this effort before the
split index/table one. I can work on a per relfilenode stat patch first.

Does this patch ordering make sense to you?

1) Introduce per relfilenode stats
2) Split index and table stats

>> +/*
>> + * Initialize a relcache entry to count access statistics. Called whenever an
>> + * index is opened.
>> + *
>> + * We assume that a relcache entry's pgstatind_info field is zeroed by relcache.c
>> + * when the relcache entry is made; thereafter it is long-lived data.
>> + *
>> + * This does not create a reference to a stats entry in shared memory, nor
>> + * allocate memory for the pending stats. That happens in
>> + * pgstat_assoc_index().
>> + */
>> +void
>> +pgstat_init_index(Relation rel)
>> +{
>> + /*
>> + * We only count stats for indexes
>> + */
>> + Assert(rel->rd_rel->relkind == RELKIND_INDEX);
>> +
>> + if (!pgstat_track_counts)
>> + {
>> + if (rel->pgstatind_info != NULL)
>> + pgstat_unlink_index(rel);
>> +
>> + /* We're not counting at all */
>> + rel->pgstat_enabled = false;
>> + rel->pgstatind_info = NULL;
>> + return;
>> + }
>> +
>> + rel->pgstat_enabled = true;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Prepare for statistics for this index to be collected.
>> + *
>> + * This ensures we have a reference to the stats entry before stats can be
>> + * generated. That is important because an index drop in another
>> + * connection could otherwise lead to the stats entry being dropped, which then
>> + * later would get recreated when flushing stats.
>> + *
>> + * This is separate from pgstat_init_index() as it is not uncommon for
>> + * relcache entries to be opened without ever getting stats reported.
>> + */
>> +void
>> +pgstat_assoc_index(Relation rel)
>> +{
>> + Assert(rel->pgstat_enabled);
>> + Assert(rel->pgstatind_info == NULL);
>> +
>> + /* Else find or make the PgStat_IndexStatus entry, and update link */
>> + rel->pgstatind_info = pgstat_prep_index_pending(RelationGetRelid(rel),
>> + rel->rd_rel->relisshared);
>> +
>> + /* don't allow link a stats to multiple relcache entries */
>> + Assert(rel->pgstatind_info->relation == NULL);
>> +
>> + /* mark this relation as the owner */
>> + rel->pgstatind_info->relation = rel;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Break the mutual link between a relcache entry and pending index stats entry.
>> + * This must be called whenever one end of the link is removed.
>> + */
>> +void
>> +pgstat_unlink_index(Relation rel)
>> +{
>> +
>> + if (rel->pgstatind_info == NULL)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + /* link sanity check for the index stats */
>> + if (rel->pgstatind_info)
>> + {
>> + Assert(rel->pgstatind_info->relation == rel);
>> + rel->pgstatind_info->relation = NULL;
>> + rel->pgstatind_info = NULL;
>> + }
>> +}
>> ...
>
> This is a fair bit of duplicated code - perhaps we could have shared helpers?
>

Yeah, I had it in mind and that was part of the "Will now work on addressing the
up-thread remaining comments" remark I made up-thread.

>
>> +/* ----------
>> + * PgStat_IndexStatus Per-index status within a backend
>> + *
>> + * Many of the event counters are nontransactional, ie, we count events
>> + * in committed and aborted transactions alike. For these, we just count
>> + * directly in the PgStat_IndexStatus.
>> + * ----------
>> + */
>> +typedef struct PgStat_IndexStatus
>> +{
>> + Oid r_id; /* relation's OID */
>> + bool r_shared; /* is it a shared catalog? */
>> + struct PgStat_IndexXactStatus *trans; /* lowest subxact's counts */
>> + PgStat_IndexCounts counts; /* event counts to be sent */
>> + Relation relation; /* rel that is using this entry */
>> +} PgStat_IndexStatus;
>> +
>> /* ----------
>> * PgStat_TableXactStatus Per-table, per-subtransaction status
>> * ----------
>> @@ -227,6 +264,29 @@ typedef struct PgStat_TableXactStatus
>> } PgStat_TableXactStatus;
>>
>>
>> +/* ----------
>> + * PgStat_IndexXactStatus Per-index, per-subtransaction status
>> + * ----------
>> + */
>> +typedef struct PgStat_IndexXactStatus
>> +{
>> + PgStat_Counter tuples_inserted; /* tuples inserted in (sub)xact */
>> + PgStat_Counter tuples_updated; /* tuples updated in (sub)xact */
>> + PgStat_Counter tuples_deleted; /* tuples deleted in (sub)xact */
>> + bool truncdropped; /* relation truncated/dropped in this
>> + * (sub)xact */
>> + /* tuples i/u/d prior to truncate/drop */
>> + PgStat_Counter inserted_pre_truncdrop;
>> + PgStat_Counter updated_pre_truncdrop;
>> + PgStat_Counter deleted_pre_truncdrop;
>> + int nest_level; /* subtransaction nest level */
>> + /* links to other structs for same relation: */
>> + struct PgStat_IndexXactStatus *upper; /* next higher subxact if any */
>> + PgStat_IndexStatus *parent; /* per-table status */
>> + /* structs of same subxact level are linked here: */
>> + struct PgStat_IndexXactStatus *next; /* next of same subxact */
>> +} PgStat_IndexXactStatus;
>
> I don't think much of this is used? It doesn't look like you're using most of
> the fields. Which makes sense - there's not really the same transactional
> behaviour for indexes as there is for tables.
>
>

Fully agree. I had in mind to revisit this stuff too.

Regards,

--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com