On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > For making hash indexes usable in production systems, we need to improve its > concurrency and make them crash-safe by WAL logging them. The first problem > I would like to tackle is improve the concurrency of hash indexes. First > advantage, I see with improving concurrency of hash indexes is that it has > the potential of out performing btree for "equal to" searches (with my WIP > patch attached with this mail, I could see hash index outperform btree index > by 20 to 30% for very simple cases which are mentioned later in this e-mail). > Another advantage as explained by Robert  earlier is that if we remove > heavy weight locks under which we perform arbitrarily large number of > operations, it can help us to sensibly WAL log it. With this patch, I would > also like to make hash indexes capable of completing the incomplete_splits > which can occur due to interrupts (like cancel) or errors or crash. > > I have studied the concurrency problems of hash index and some of the > solutions proposed for same previously and based on that came up with below > solution which is based on idea by Robert , community discussion on thread >  and some of my own thoughts. > > Maintain a flag that can be set and cleared on the primary bucket page, call > it split-in-progress, and a flag that can optionally be set on particular > index tuples, call it moved-by-split. We will allow scans of all buckets and > insertions into all buckets while the split is in progress, but (as now) we > will not allow more than one split for a bucket to be in progress at the same > time. We start the split by updating metapage to incrementing the number of > buckets and set the split-in-progress flag in primary bucket pages for old > and new buckets (lets number them as old bucket - N+1/2; new bucket - N + 1 > for the matter of discussion). While the split-in-progress flag is set, any > scans of N+1 will first scan that bucket, ignoring any tuples flagged > moved-by-split, and then ALSO scan bucket N+1/2. To ensure that vacuum > doesn't clean any tuples from old or new buckets till this scan is in > progress, maintain a pin on both of the buckets (first pin on old bucket > needs to be acquired). The moved-by-split flag never has any effect except > when scanning the new bucket that existed at the start of that particular > scan, and then only if the split-in-progress flag was also set at that time.
You really need parentheses in (N+1)/2. Because you are not trying to add 1/2 to N. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations > Once the split operation has set the split-in-progress flag, it will begin > scanning bucket (N+1)/2. Every time it finds a tuple that properly belongs > in bucket N+1, it will insert the tuple into bucket N+1 with the > moved-by-split flag set. Tuples inserted by anything other than a split > operation will leave this flag clear, and tuples inserted while the split is > in progress will target the same bucket that they would hit if the split were > already complete. Thus, bucket N+1 will end up with a mix of moved-by-split > tuples, coming from bucket (N+1)/2, and unflagged tuples coming from parallel > insertion activity. When the scan of bucket (N+1)/2 is complete, we know > that bucket N+1 now contains all the tuples that are supposed to be there, so > we clear the split-in-progress flag on both buckets. Future scans of both > buckets can proceed normally. Split operation needs to take a cleanup lock > on primary bucket to ensure that it doesn't start if there is any Insertion > happening in the bucket. It will leave the lock on primary bucket, but not > pin as it proceeds for next overflow page. Retaining pin on primary bucket > will ensure that vacuum doesn't start on this bucket till the split is > finished. In the second-to-last sentence, I believe you have reversed the words "lock" and "pin". > Insertion will happen by scanning the appropriate bucket and needs to retain > pin on primary bucket to ensure that concurrent split doesn't happen, > otherwise split might leave this tuple unaccounted. What do you mean by "unaccounted"? > Now for deletion of tuples from (N+1/2) bucket, we need to wait for the > completion of any scans that began before we finished populating bucket N+1, > because otherwise we might remove tuples that they're still expecting to find > in bucket (N+1)/2. The scan will always maintain a pin on primary bucket and > Vacuum can take a buffer cleanup lock (cleanup lock includes Exclusive lock > on bucket and wait till all the pins on buffer becomes zero) on primary > bucket for the buffer. I think we can relax the requirement for vacuum to > take cleanup lock (instead take Exclusive Lock on buckets where no split has > happened) with the additional flag has_garbage which will be set on primary > bucket, if any tuples have been moved from that bucket, however I think for > squeeze phase (in this phase, we try to move the tuples from later overflow > pages to earlier overflow pages in the bucket and then if there are any empty > overflow pages, then we move them to kind of a free pool) of vacuum, we need > a cleanup lock, otherwise scan results might get effected. affected, not effected. I think this is basically correct, although I don't find it to be as clear as I think it could be. It seems very clear that any operation which potentially changes the order of tuples in the bucket chain, such as the squeeze phase as currently implemented, also needs to exclude all concurrent scans. However, I think that it's OK for vacuum to remove tuples from a given page with only an exclusive lock on that particular page. Also, I think that when cleaning up after a split, an exclusive lock is likewise sufficient to remove tuples from a particular page provided that we know that every scan currently in progress started after split-in-progress was set. If each scan holds a pin on the primary bucket and setting the split-in-progress flag requires a cleanup lock on that page, then this is always true. (Plain text email is preferred to HTML on this mailing list.) -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers