Re: WAL prefetch

From: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Sean Chittenden <seanc(at)joyent(dot)com>
Subject: Re: WAL prefetch
Date: 2018-06-27 15:25:05
Message-ID: e66805a4-dd44-3b80-b636-957434289549@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 06/27/2018 11:44 AM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:
>
> ...
>
> I have improved my WAL prefetch patch. The main reason of slowdown
> recovery speed with enabled prefetch was that it doesn't take in account
> initialized pages  (XLOG_HEAP_INIT_PAGE)
> and doesn't remember (cache) full page writes.
> The main differences of new version of the patch:
>
> 1. Use effective_cache_size as size of cache of prefetched blocks
> 2. Do not prefetch blocks sent in shared buffers
> 3. Do not prefetch blocks  for RM_HEAP_ID with XLOG_HEAP_INIT_PAGE bit set
> 4. Remember new/fpw pages in prefetch cache, to avoid prefetch them for
> subsequent  WAL records.
> 5. Add min/max prefetch lead parameters to make it possible to
> synchronize speed of prefetch with speed of replay.
> 6. Increase size of open file cache to avoid redundant open/close
> operations.
>

Thanks. I plan to look at it and do some testing, but I won't have time
until the end of next week (probably).

regards

--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Pavel Stehule 2018-06-27 15:38:31 Re: effect of JIT tuple deform?
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2018-06-27 15:19:11 Re: effect of JIT tuple deform?