On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 2:04 AM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 12, 2017 at 10:12 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> I may have missed something, but there is no intention to ignore known
> >> regressions/reviews. Of course, I don't think that every regression
> will be
> >> solvable, like if you run a CPU-bound workload, setting it up in a way
> such
> >> that you repeatedly exercise the area where WARM is doing additional
> work,
> >> without providing any benefit, may be you can still find regression. I
> am
> >> willing to fix them as long as they are fixable and we are comfortable
> with
> >> the additional code complexity. IMHO certain trade-offs are good, but I
> >> understand that not everybody will agree with my views and that's ok.
> >
> > The point here is that we can't make intelligent decisions about
> > whether to commit this feature unless we know which situations get
> > better and which get worse and by how much.  I don't accept as a
> > general principle the idea that CPU-bound workloads don't matter.
> > Obviously, I/O-bound workloads matter too, but we can't throw
> > CPU-bound workloads under the bus.  Now, avoiding index bloat does
> > also save CPU, so it is easy to imagine that WARM could come out ahead
> > even if each update consumes slightly more CPU when actually updating,
> > so we might not actually regress.  If we do, I guess I'd want to know
> > why.
> I myself wonder if this CPU overhead is at all related to LP_DEAD
> recycling during page splits.

With the respect to the tests that myself, Dilip and others did for WARM, I
think we were kinda exercising the worst case scenario. Like in one case,
we created a table with 40% fill factor,  created an index with a large
text column, WARM updated all rows in the table, turned off autovacuum so
that chain conversion does not take place, and then repeatedly run select
query on those rows using the index which did not receive WARM insert.

IOW we were only measuring the overhead of doing recheck by constructing an
index tuple from the heap tuple and then comparing it against the existing
index tuple. And we did find regression, which is not entirely surprising
because obviously that code path does extra work when it needs to do
recheck. And we're only measuring that overhead without taking into account
the benefits of WARM to the system in general. I think counter-argument to
that is, such workload may exists somewhere which might be regressed.

I have my suspicions that the recyling
> has some relationship to locality, which leads me to want to
> investigate how Claudio Freire's patch to consistently treat heap TID
> as part of the B-Tree sort order could help, both in general, and for

It could be, especially if we re-redesign recheck solely based on the index
pointer state and the heap tuple state. That could be more performant for
selects and could also be more robust, but will require index inserts to
get hold of the old index pointer (based on root TID), compare it against
the new index tuple and either skip the insert (if everything matches) or
set a PREWARM flag on the old pointer, and insert the new tuple with

Searching for old index pointer will be non-starter for non-unique indexes,
unless they are also sorted by TID, something that Claudio's patch does.
What I am not sure is whether the patch on its own will stand the
performance implications because it increases the index tuple width (and
probably index maintenance cost too).


 Pavan Deolasee                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Reply via email to