|From:||Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Subject:||Block level parallel vacuum WIP|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox|
I'd like to propose block level parallel VACUUM.
This feature makes VACUUM possible to use multiple CPU cores.
Vacuum Processing Logic
PostgreSQL VACUUM processing logic consists of 2 phases,
1. Collecting dead tuple locations on heap.
2. Reclaiming dead tuples from heap and indexes.
These phases 1 and 2 are executed alternately, and once amount of dead
tuple location reached maintenance_work_mem in phase 1, phase 2 will
As for PoC, I implemented parallel vacuum so that each worker
processes both 1 and 2 phases for particular block range.
Suppose we vacuum 1000 blocks table with 4 workers, each worker
processes 250 consecutive blocks in phase 1 and then reclaims dead
tuples from heap and indexes (phase 2).
To use visibility map efficiency, each worker scan particular block
range of relation and collect dead tuple locations.
After each worker finished task, the leader process gathers these
vacuum statistics information and update relfrozenxid if possible.
I also changed the buffer lock infrastructure so that multiple
processes can wait for cleanup lock on a buffer.
And the new GUC parameter vacuum_parallel_workers controls the number
of vacuum workers.
I ran parallel vacuum on 13GB table (pgbench scale 1000) with several
workers (on my poor virtual machine).
The result is,
1. Vacuum whole table without index (disable page skipping)
1 worker : 33 sec
2 workers : 27 sec
3 workers : 23 sec
4 workers : 22 sec
2. Vacuum table and index (after 10000 transaction executed)
1 worker : 12 sec
2 workers : 49 sec
3 workers : 54 sec
4 workers : 53 sec
As a result of my test, since multiple process could frequently try to
acquire the cleanup lock on same index buffer, execution time of
parallel vacuum got worse.
And it seems to be effective for only table vacuum so far, but is not
improved as expected (maybe disk bottleneck).
ISTM that processing index vacuum by multiple process is not good idea
in most cases because many index items can be stored in a page and
multiple vacuum worker could try to require the cleanup lock on the
same index buffer.
It's rather better that multiple workers process particular block
range and then multiple workers process each particular block range,
and then one worker per index processes index vacuum.
Still lots of work to do but attached PoC patch.
Feedback and suggestion are very welcome.
|Next Message||Michael Paquier||2016-08-23 11:50:14||Re: LSN as a recovery target|
|Previous Message||Petr Jelinek||2016-08-23 10:04:21||Re: [PATCH] Transaction traceability - txid_status(bigint)|