|From:||Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|To:||David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>|
|Cc:||Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Block level parallel vacuum WIP|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 5, 2017 at 12:14 PM, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net> wrote:
>> On 3/4/17 9:08 PM, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>> On Sat, Mar 4, 2017 at 5:47 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 9:50 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>> Yes, it's taking a time to update logic and measurement but it's
>>>>> coming along. Also I'm working on changing deadlock detection. Will
>>>>> post new patch and measurement result.
>>>> I think that we should push this patch out to v11. I think there are
>>>> too many issues here to address in the limited time we have remaining
>>>> this cycle, and I believe that if we try to get them all solved in the
>>>> next few weeks we're likely to end up getting backed into some choices
>>>> by time pressure that we may later regret bitterly. Since I created
>>>> the deadlock issues that this patch is facing, I'm willing to try to
>>>> help solve them, but I think it's going to require considerable and
>>>> delicate surgery, and I don't think doing that under time pressure is
>>>> a good idea.
>>>> From a fairness point of view, a patch that's not in reviewable shape
>>>> on March 1st should really be pushed out, and we're several days past
>>> Agreed. There are surely some rooms to discuss about the design yet,
>>> and it will take long time. it's good to push this out to CF2017-07.
>>> Thank you for the comment.
>> I have marked this patch "Returned with Feedback." Of course you are
>> welcome to submit this patch to the 2017-07 CF, or whenever you feel it
>> is ready.
> Thank you!
I re-considered the basic design of parallel lazy vacuum. I didn't
change the basic concept of this feature and usage, the lazy vacuum
still executes with some parallel workers. In current design, dead
tuple TIDs are shared with all vacuum workers including leader process
when table has index. If we share dead tuple TIDs, we have to make two
synchronization points: before starting vacuum and before clearing
dead tuple TIDs. Before starting vacuum we have to make sure that the
dead tuple TIDs are not added no more. And before clearing dead tuple
TIDs we have to make sure that it's used no more.
For index vacuum, each indexes is assigned to a vacuum workers based
on ParallelWorkerNumber. For example, if a table has 5 indexes and
vacuum with 2 workers, the leader process and one vacuum worker are
assigned to 2 indexes, and another vacuum process is assigned the
remaining one. The following steps are how the parallel vacuum
processes if table has indexes.
1. The leader process and workers scan the table in parallel using
ParallelHeapScanDesc, and collect dead tuple TIDs to shared memory.
2. Before vacuum on table, the leader process sort the dead tuple TIDs
in physical order once all workers completes to scan the table.
3. In vacuum on table, the leader process and workers reclaim garbage
on table in block-level parallel.
4. In vacuum on indexes, the indexes on table is assigned to
particular parallel worker or leader process. The process assigned to
a index vacuums on the index.
5. Before back to scanning the table, the leader process clears the
dead tuple TIDs once all workers completes to vacuum on table and
Attached the latest patch but it's still PoC version patch and
contains some debug codes. Note that this patch still requires another
patch which moves the relation extension lock out of heavy-weight
lock. The parallel lazy vacuum patch could work even without 
patch but could fail during vacuum in some cases.
Also, I attached the result of performance evaluation. The table size
is approximately 300MB ( > shared_buffers) and I deleted tuples on
every blocks before execute vacuum so that vacuum visits every blocks.
The server spec is
* Intel Xeon E5620 @ 2.4Ghz (8cores)
* 32GB RAM
According to the result of table with indexes, performance of lazy
vacuum improved up to a point where the number of indexes and parallel
degree are the same. If a table has 16 indexes and vacuum with 16
workers, parallel vacuum is 10x faster than single process execution.
Also according to the result of table with no indexes, the parallel
vacuum is 5x faster than single process execution at 8 parallel
degree. Of course we can vacuum only for indexes
I'm planning to work on that in PG11, will register it to next CF.
Comment and feedback are very welcome.
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
|Next Message||Rafia Sabih||2017-07-26 09:28:20||Re: Partition-wise join for join between (declaratively) partitioned tables|
|Previous Message||Julien Rouhaud||2017-07-26 08:31:37||Re: proposal: psql: check env variable PSQL_PAGER|