From: Robert Haas [mailto:robertmh...@gmail.com] > On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 2:32 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki > <tsunakawa.ta...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: > > IMHO, overall, there should be pros and cons of the current approach and > the new UNDo one (like Oracle?), depending on the workload. Under > update-heavy workload, the UNDO method may be better. OTOH, under the > mostly-INSERT workload (like data warehouse?), the current method will be > better because it writes no log for UNDO. > > The foreground operation will complete more quickly, because it won't have > to write UNDO. On the other hand, you'll have to set hint bits later, as > well as freeze, which may be more expensive than writing UNDO by the time > all is said and done. Whether it's better to do pay a foreground tax > immediately or to do deferred work at a later time depends on things like > whether you have quiet times during which you can catch up on the deferred > work ... but the number of users who have gotten unpleasant surprises due > to autovacuum kicking in during a busy period is not small.
I see. autovacuum is certainly almost unpredictable, at least for those who are not aware of its existence and tuning. Recently, one of our customers faced the inability to perform INSERTs because of xid wraparound. Their workload is INSERT-heavy, and (inefficiently) used autocommit to insert each row, which resulted in the xid consumption faster than the slow xid wraparound autovacuum. > > Furthermore, it maybe the best to be able to switch the method for > > each table and/or tablespace. For example, in pgbench, history table > uses the current method, and other tables use the UNDO method. Is it time > to introduce a pluggable storage system? > > IMHO, it's past time for that. Do you mean by "past time" that the community decided not to introduce pluggable storage manager? If it's true, that's a pity. But I remember that there was a discussion about pluggable storage manager at PGConf or some other event this year. Or, do you mean that the current approach should be abandoned and the UNDO approach replace it? > > Because PostgreSQL is a follower in the UNDO approach, I think it will > be better to study other DBMSs well (Oracle and MySQL?). That includes > not only their manuals, but also whitepapers and books. Especially, I > expect good books to give deep knowledge on performance tuning and > troubleshooting, from which we will be able to know the cons that Oracle's > materials don't state. > > I agree up to a point. I think we need to design our own system as well > as we can, not just copy what others have done. For example, the design > I sketched will work with all of PostgreSQL's existing index types. You > need to modify each AM in order to support in-place updates when a column > indexed by that AM has been modified, and that's probably highly desirable, > but it's not a hard requirement. I believe that's a better approach for > us than insisting that we have to do it in exactly the same way as some > other system. Now, that doesn't mean we shouldn't learn from what works > well and poorly in other systems, but I think our goal here should be to > chart the best way forward given PostgreSQL's existing architecture and > its existing strengths and weaknesses, rather than to make it exactly like > Oracle or MySQL or anything else. Few people on this mailing list would > say that either of those systems are categorically better than PostgreSQL; > most, I suspect, would disagree somewhat vigorously. Yes, agreed. I didn't intend to just imitate Oracle/MySQL design. I meant that it will be better to study in advance what trouble Oracle/MySQL design has caused their users, and avoid pitfalls as much as possible. For example, when I ran TPC-B benchmark against Oracle and PostgreSQL, I was embarrassed by frequent deadlocks in Oracle. It took some time for me to find out that INITRANS needs to be tuned with ALTER TABLE. PostgreSQL ran smoothly without any tuning. I find your UNDO approach attractive. On the other hand, I sometimes wonder where PostgreSQL is headed for. I'm sometimes asked by database users "How different is PostgreSQL from MySQL?" If the UNDO approach is taken, PostgreSQL would appear more similar to MySQL. I don't say that's bad, but I wonder whether we can appeal the new feature in a big picture. For example, the current (VACUUM) approach would prevent PostgreSQL from becoming a database for OLTP/analytics mixed workload, because long-running analytics queries cause tale and index bloat regardless of whether those queries access the same data as the OLTP workload, wouldn't it? Can we appeal the future of PostgreSQL and the difference from MySQL as "PostgreSQL is pursuing to handle multiple workloads in the same database to better utilize data and IT resources. The new UNDO approach is one step toward that." Regards Takayuki Tsunakawa -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
