On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 5:27 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> One of the ideas Simon and I had been considering at one point was adding
>> some better de-duplication logic to the fsync absorb code, which I'm
>> reminded by the pattern here might be helpful independently of other
> Hopefully I'm not stepping on any toes here, but I thought this was an
> awfully good idea and had a chance to take a look at how hard it would
> be today while en route from point A to point B. The answer turned
> out to be "not very", so PFA a patch that seems to work. I tested it
> by attaching gdb to the background writer while running pgbench, and
> it eliminate the backend fsyncs without even breaking a sweat.
I had been concerned about how long the lock would be held, and I was
pondering ways to do only partial deduplication to reduce the time.
But since you already wrote a patch to do the whole thing, I figured
I'd time it.
I arranged to test an instrumented version of your patch under large
shared_buffers of 4GB, conditions that would maximize the opportunity
for it to take a long time. Running your compaction to go from 524288
to a handful (14 to 29, depending on run) took between 36 and 39
For comparison, doing just the memcpy part of AbsorbFsyncRequest on
a full queue took from 24 to 27 milliseconds.
They are close enough to each other that I am no longer interested in
partial deduplication. But both are long enough that I wonder if
having a hash table in shared memory that is kept unique automatically
at each update might not be worthwhile.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Fujii Masao||Date: 2011-01-17 01:07:16|
|Subject: Re: auto-sizing wal_buffers|
|Previous:||From: Ron Mayer||Date: 2011-01-17 00:30:15|
|Subject: Re: LOCK for non-tables|