On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I glanced at the patches but the both patches don't obey the coding
> style of PostgreSQL.
> Please refer to [1].
> [1] 
> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Developer_FAQ#What.27s_the_formatting_style_used_in_PostgreSQL_source_code.3F.

I thought I had. I'll go through that list to check what I missed.

>> In the results archive, the .vacuum prefix is the patched version with
>> both patch 1 and 2, .git.ref is just patch 1 (without which the
>> truncate takes unholily long).
> Did you measure the performance benefit of 0001 patch by comparing
> HEAD with HEAD+0001 patch?

Not the whole test, but yes. Without the 0001 patch the backward scan
step during truncate goes between 3 and 5 times slower. I don't have
timings because the test never finished without the patch. It would
have finished, but it would have taken about a day.

>> Grepping the results a bit, picking an average run out of all runs on
>> each scale:
>> Timings:
>> Patched:
>> s100: CPU: user: 3.21 s, system: 1.54 s, elapsed: 18.95 s.
>> s400: CPU: user: 14.03 s, system: 6.35 s, elapsed: 107.71 s.
>> s4000: CPU: user: 228.17 s, system: 108.33 s, elapsed: 3017.30 s.
>> Unpatched:
>> s100: CPU: user: 3.39 s, system: 1.64 s, elapsed: 18.67 s.
>> s400: CPU: user: 15.39 s, system: 7.03 s, elapsed: 114.91 s.
>> s4000: CPU: user: 282.21 s, system: 105.95 s, elapsed: 3017.28 s.
>> Total I/O (in MB)
>> Patched:
>> s100: R:2.4 - W:5862
>> s400: R:1337.4 - W:29385.6
>> s4000: R:318631 - W:370154
>> Unpatched:
>> s100: R:1412.4 - W:7644.6
>> s400: R:3180.6 - W:36281.4
>> s4000: R:330683 - W:370391
>> So, in essence, CPU time didn't get adversely affected. If anything,
>> it got improved by about 20% on the biggest case (scale 4000).
> And this test case deletes all tuples in relation and then measure
> duration of vacuum.
> It would not be effect much in practical use case.

Well, this patch set started because I had to do exactly that, and
realized just how inefficient vacuum was in that case.

But it doesn't mean it won't benefit more realistic use cases. Almost
any big database ends up hitting this 1GB limit because big tables
take very long to vacuum and accumulate a lot of bloat in-between

If you have a specific test case in mind I can try to run it.

>> While total runtime didn't change much, I believe this is only due to
>> the fact that the index is perfectly correlated (clustered?) since
>> it's a pristine index, so index scans either remove or skip full
>> pages, never leaving things half-way. A bloated index would probably
>> show a substantially different behavior, I'll try to get a script that
>> does it by running pgbench a while before the vacuum or something like
>> that.
>> However, the total I/O metric already shows remarkable improvement.
>> This metric is measuring all the I/O including pgbench init, the
>> initial vacuum pgbench init does, the delete and the final vacuum. So
>> it's not just the I/O for the vacuum itself, but the whole run. We can
>> see the patched version reading a lot less (less scans over the
>> indexes will do that), and in some cases writing less too (again, less
>> index scans may be performing less redundant writes when cleaning
>> up/reclaiming index pages).
> What value of maintenance_work_mem did you use for this test?

4GB on both, patched and HEAD.

> Since
> DeadTuplesSegment struct still stores array of ItemPointerData(6byte)
> representing dead tuple I supposed that the frequency of index vacuum
> does not change. But according to the test result, a index vacuum is
> invoked once and removes 400000000 rows at the time. It means that the
> vacuum stored about 2289 MB memory during heap vacuum. On the other
> side, the result of test without 0002 patch show that a index vacuum
> remove 178956737 rows at the time, which means 1GB memory was used.

1GB is a hardcoded limit on HEAD for vacuum work mem. This patch
removes that limit and lets vacuum use all the memory the user gave to

In the test, in both cases, 4GB was used as maintenance_work_mem
value, but HEAD cannot use all the 4GB, and it will limit itself to
just 1GB.

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to