I reviewed the dht-v2.patch and found that it is in excellent shape.

Benchmarking shows that this performs somewhat faster than
dynahash which is surprising because it is doing DSA address
translations on the fly.

One area where this could run faster is to reduce the amount of
time when the hash is in the RESIZE_IN_PROGRESS state.

When a hash partition reaches 75% full a resize begins by allocating
an empty new hash bucket array with double the number of buckets.
This begins the RESIZE_IN_PROGRESS state where there is both an
old and a new hash bucket array.

During the RESIZE state all operations such as find, insert,
delete and iterate run slower due to having to look items up in
two hash bucket arrays.

Whenever a new item is inserted into the hash and the hash is in
the RESIZE state the current code takes the time to move one item
from the old hash partition to the new hash partition. During
insertion an exclusive lock is already held on the partition so
this is an efficient time to do the resize cleanup work.

However since we only clean up one item per insertion we do not
complete the cleanup and free the old hash bucket array until we
are due to start yet another resize operation.

So we are effectively always in the RESIZE state which slows down
operations and wastes some space.

Here are the timings for insert and find in nanoseconds on a
Macbook Pro. The insert_resize figure includes the resize work to
move one item from the old to the new hash bucket array.

insert_resize: 945.98
insert_clean:  450.39
find_resize:   348.90
find_clean:    293.16

The attached dht-v2-resize-cleanup.patch patch applies on top of
the dht-v2.patch and speeds up the resize cleanup process so that
hashes spend most of their time in the clean state.

It does this by cleaning up more than one old item during
inserts. This patch cleans up three old items.

There is also the case where a hash receives all of its inserts
at the beginning and the rest of the work load is all finds. This
patch also cleans up two items for each find.

The downside of doing extra cleanup early is some additional
latency. Here are the experimental figures and the approximate
formulas for different numbers of cleanups for inserts. Note that
we cannot go lower than one cleanup per insert.

Resize work in inserts: 729.79 insert + 216.19 * cleanups
1  945.98
2 1178.13
3 1388.73
4 1617.04
5 1796.91

Here are the timings for different numbers of cleanups for finds.
Note that since we do not hold an exclusive partition lock on a find
there is the additional overhead of taking that lock.

Resize work in finds: 348.90 dirty_find + 233.45 lock + 275.78 * cleanups
0  348.90
1  872.88
2 1138.98
3 1448.94
4 1665.31
5 1975.91

The new effective latencies during the resize vs. the clean states.


insert_resize: 1388.73  -- 3 cleaned
insert_clean:   450.39
find_resize:   1138.98  -- 2 cleaned
find_clean:     293.16

The overall performance will be faster due to not having to examine
more than one hash bucket array most of the time.


John Gorman

Attachment: dht-v2-resize-cleanup.patch
Description: Binary data

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

Reply via email to