Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum

From: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mahendra Singh <mahi6run(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum
Date: 2019-11-13 02:59:41
Message-ID: CAFiTN-tN3JM0brRMpw2V-t-cMrCwC6sHRye+YGdYspqouEGNUQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 7:03 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 5:30 PM Masahiko Sawada
> <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 20:11, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 3:39 PM Masahiko Sawada
> > > <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 12 Nov 2019 at 18:26, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 2:25 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yeah, maybe something like amparallelvacuumoptions. The options can be:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > VACUUM_OPTION_NO_PARALLEL 0 # vacuum (neither bulkdelete nor
> > > > > > vacuumcleanup) can't be performed in parallel
> > > > > > VACUUM_OPTION_NO_PARALLEL_CLEANUP 1 # vacuumcleanup cannot be
> > > > > > performed in parallel (hash index will set this flag)
> > > > >
> > > > > Maybe we don't want this option? because if 3 or 4 is not set then we
> > > > > will not do the cleanup in parallel right?
> > > > >
> > >
> > > Yeah, but it is better to be explicit about this.
> >
> > VACUUM_OPTION_NO_PARALLEL_BULKDEL is missing?
> >
>
> I am not sure if that is required.
>
> > I think brin indexes
> > will use this flag.
> >
>
> Brin index can set VACUUM_OPTION_PARALLEL_CLEANUP in my proposal and
> it should work.

IIUC, VACUUM_OPTION_PARALLEL_CLEANUP means no parallel bulk delete and
always parallel cleanup? I am not sure whether this is the best way
because for the cleanup option we are being explicit for each option
i.e PARALLEL_CLEANUP, NO_PARALLEL_CLEANUP, etc, then why not the same
for the bulk delete. I mean why don't we keep both PARALLEL_BULKDEL
and NO_PARALLEL_BULKDEL?

>
> > It will end up with
> > (VACUUM_OPTION_NO_PARALLEL_CLEANUP |
> > VACUUM_OPTION_NO_PARALLEL_BULKDEL) is equivalent to
> > VACUUM_OPTION_NO_PARALLEL, though.
> >
> > >
> > > > > > VACUUM_OPTION_PARALLEL_BULKDEL 2 # bulkdelete can be done in
> > > > > > parallel (Indexes nbtree, hash, gin, gist, spgist, bloom will set this
> > > > > > flag)
> > > > > > VACUUM_OPTION_PARALLEL_COND_CLEANUP 3 # vacuumcleanup can be done in
> > > > > > parallel if bulkdelete is not performed (Indexes nbtree, brin, hash,
> > > > > > gin, gist, spgist, bloom will set this flag)
> > > > > > VACUUM_OPTION_PARALLEL_CLEANUP 4 # vacuumcleanup can be done in
> > > > > > parallel even if bulkdelete is already performed (Indexes gin, brin,
> > > > > > and bloom will set this flag)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does something like this make sense?
> > > >
> > > > 3 and 4 confused me because 4 also looks conditional. How about having
> > > > two flags instead: one for doing parallel cleanup when not performed
> > > > yet (VACUUM_OPTION_PARALLEL_COND_CLEANUP) and another one for doing
> > > > always parallel cleanup (VACUUM_OPTION_PARALLEL_CLEANUP)?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hmm, this is exactly what I intend to say with 3 and 4. I am not sure
> > > what makes you think 4 is conditional.
> >
> > Hmm so why gin and bloom will set 3 and 4 flags? I thought if it sets
> > 4 it doesn't need to set 3 because 4 means always doing cleanup in
> > parallel.
> >
>
> Yeah, that makes sense. They can just set 4.
>
> > >
> > > > That way, we
> > > > can have flags as follows and index AM chooses two flags, one from the
> > > > first two flags for bulk deletion and another from next three flags
> > > > for cleanup.
> > > >
> > > > VACUUM_OPTION_PARALLEL_NO_BULKDEL 1 << 0
> > > > VACUUM_OPTION_PARALLEL_BULKDEL 1 << 1
> > > > VACUUM_OPTION_PARALLEL_NO_CLEANUP 1 << 2
> > > > VACUUM_OPTION_PARALLEL_COND_CLEANUP 1 << 3
> > > > VACUUM_OPTION_PARALLEL_CLEANUP 1 << 4
> > > >
> > >
> > > This also looks reasonable, but if there is an index that doesn't want
> > > to support a parallel vacuum, it needs to set multiple flags.
> >
> > Right. It would be better to use uint16 as two uint8. I mean that if
> > first 8 bits are 0 it means VACUUM_OPTION_PARALLEL_NO_BULKDEL and if
> > next 8 bits are 0 means VACUUM_OPTION_PARALLEL_NO_CLEANUP. Other flags
> > could be followings:
> >
> > VACUUM_OPTION_PARALLEL_BULKDEL 0x0001
> > VACUUM_OPTION_PARALLEL_COND_CLEANUP 0x0100
> > VACUUM_OPTION_PARALLEL_CLEANUP 0x0200
> >
>
> Hmm, I think we should define these flags in the most simple way.
> Your previous proposal sounds okay to me.
>
> --
> With Regards,
> Amit Kapila.
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Masahiko Sawada 2019-11-13 03:03:52 Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2019-11-13 02:51:33 Re: ssl passphrase callback