On 07/29/2016 01:15 PM, Aleksander Alekseev wrote:
Some time ago we discussed an idea of "fast temporary tables":
In two words the idea is following.
PostgreSQL stores information about all relations in pg_catalog. Some
applications create and delete a lot of temporary tables. It causes a
bloating of pg_catalog and running auto vacuum on it. It's quite an
expensive operation which affects entire database performance.
We could introduce a new type of temporary tables. Information about
these tables is stored not in a catalog but in backend's memory. This
way user can solve a pg_catalog bloating problem and improve overall
Great! Thanks for the patch, this is definitely an annoying issue worth
fixing. I've spent a bit of time looking at the patch today, comments
I took me a few months but eventually I made it work. Attached patch
has some flaws. I decided not to invest a lot of time in documenting
it or pgindent'ing all files yet. In my experience it will be rewritten
entirely 3 or 4 times before merging anyway :) But it _works_ and
passes all tests I could think of, including non-trivial cases like
index-only or bitmap scans of catalog tables.
Well, jokes aside, that's a pretty lousy excuse for not writing any
docs, and you're pretty much asking the reviewers to reverse-engineer
your reasoning. So I doubt you'll get many serious reviews without
fixing this gap.
CREATE FAST TEMP TABLE fasttab_test1(x int, s text);
INSERT INTO fasttab_test1 VALUES (1, 'aaa'), (2, 'bbb'), (3, 'ccc');
UPDATE fasttab_test1 SET s = 'ddd' WHERE x = 2;
DELETE FROM fasttab_test1 WHERE x = 3;
SELECT * FROM fasttab_test1 ORDER BY x;
DROP TABLE fasttab_test1;
More sophisticated examples could be find in regression tests:
Any feedback on this patch will be much appreciated!
1) I wonder whether the FAST makes sense - does this really change the
performance significantly? IMHO you only move the catalog rows to
memory, so why should the tables be any faster? I also believe this
conflicts with SQL standard specification of CREATE TABLE.
2) Why do we need the new relpersistence value? ISTM we could easily got
with just RELPERSISTENCE_TEMP, which would got right away of many
chances as the steps are exactly the same.
IMHO if this patch gets in, we should use it as the only temp table
implementation (Or can you think of cases where keeping rows in pg_class
has advantages?). That'd also eliminate the need for FAST keyword in the
CREATE TABLE command.
The one thin I'm not sure about is that our handling of temporary tables
is not standard compliant - we require each session to create it's own
private temporary table. Moving the rows from pg_class into backend
memory seems to go in the opposite direction, but as no one was planning
to fix this, I don't think it matters much.
3) I think the heapam/indexam/xact and various other places needs a
major rework. You've mostly randomly sprinkled the code with function
calls to make the patch work - that's fine for an initial version, but a
more principled approach is needed.
4) I'm getting failures in the regression suite - apparently the patch
somehow affects costing of index only scans, so that a several queries
switch from index only scans to bitmap index scans etc. I haven't
investigated this more closely, but it seems quite consistent (and I
don't see it without the patch). It seems the patch delays building of
visibility map, or something like that.
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
To make changes to your subscription: