Re: Making all nbtree entries unique by having heap TIDs participate in comparisons

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, "Andrey V(dot) Lepikhov" <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Subject: Re: Making all nbtree entries unique by having heap TIDs participate in comparisons
Date: 2019-03-12 18:32:16
Message-ID: CA+TgmoaqM_LOd0Mz0zXokAUpZNzXVPW+_xu+HMmHRaGJuiTLfg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 10:47 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 5:17 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> > The regression that I mentioned earlier isn't in pgbench type
> > workloads (even when the distribution is something more interesting
> > that the uniform distribution default). It is only in workloads with
> > lots of page splits and lots of index churn, where we get most of the
> > benefit of the patch, but also where the costs are most apparent.
> > Hopefully it can be fixed, but if not I'm inclined to think that it's
> > a price worth paying. This certainly still needs further analysis and
> > discussion, though. This revision of the patch does not attempt to
> > address that problem in any way.
>
> I believe that I've figured out what's going on here.
>
> At first, I thought that this regression was due to the cycles that
> have been added to page splits, but that doesn't seem to be the case
> at all. Nothing that I did to make page splits faster helped (e.g.
> temporarily go back to doing them "bottom up" made no difference). CPU
> utilization was consistently slightly *higher* with the master branch
> (patch spent slightly more CPU time idle). I now believe that the
> problem is with LWLock/buffer lock contention on index pages, and that
> that's an inherent cost with a minority of write-heavy high contention
> workloads. A cost that we should just accept.

If I wanted to try to say this in fewer words, would it be fair to say
that reducing the size of an index by 40% without changing anything
else can increase contention on the remaining pages?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2019-03-12 18:34:23 Re: Making all nbtree entries unique by having heap TIDs participate in comparisons
Previous Message Robert Haas 2019-03-12 18:20:11 Re: pg_upgrade: Pass -j down to vacuumdb