On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 10:35 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 8:07 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>

Thanks for the feedback. I haven't yet worked on optimizer side feedback but I have done some work for improving the executor part, please find my comment inline. > There are two main considerations here. One, it's better to lossify > pages with many bits set than with few bits set, because the > additional work we thereby incur is less. Two, it's better to lossify > pages that are in the same chunk as other pages which we are also > going to lossify, because that's how we actually save memory. The > current code will cheerfully lossify a chunk that contains no other > pages, or will lossify one page from a chunk but not the others, > saving no memory but hurting performance. > > Maybe the simplest change here would be to make it so that when we > decide to lossify a chunk, we lossify all pages in the chunk, but only > if there's more than one. In other words, given a proposed page P to > lossify, probe the hash table for all keys in the same chunk as P and > build up a words[] array for the proposed chunk. If that words[] > array will end up with only 1 bit set, then forget the whole thing; > otherwise, delete all of the entries for the individual pages and > insert the new chunk instead. I have attempted a very simple POC with this approach just to see how many lossy pages we can save if we lossify all the pages falling in the same chunk first, before moving to the next page. I have taken some data on TPCH scale 20 with different work_mem (only calculated lossy pages did not test performance). I did not see a significant reduction in lossy pages. (POC patch attached with the mail in case someone is interested to test or more experiment). 64MB TPCH Query Head Lossy_pages Patch Lossy_pages lossy_page_reduce Q6 534984 529745 5239 Q15 535072 529785 5287 Q20 1586933 1584731 2202 40MB TPCH Query Head Lossy_pages Patch Lossy_pages lossy_page_reduce Q6 995223 993490 1733 Q14 337894 332890 5004 Q15 995417 993511 1906 Q20 1654016 1652982 1034 20MB TPCH Query Head Lossy_pages Patch Lossy_pages lossy_page_reduce Q4 166551 165280 1271 Q5 330679 330028 651 Q6 1160339 1159937 402 Q14 666897 666032 865 Q15 1160518 1160017 501 Q20 1982981 1982828 153 > As far as the patch itself is concerned, tbm_calculate_exact_pages() > is computing the number of "exact pages" which will fit into the > TIDBitmap, but I think that instead of tbm_calculate_exact_pages() you > should have something like tbm_calculate_entries() that just returns > nbuckets, and then let the caller work out how many entries are going > to be exact and how many are going to be inexact. An advantage of > that approach is that the new function could be used by tbm_create() > instead of duplicating the logic. Ok I'm not sure that the way you are > doing the rest of the calculation is wrong, but I've got no confidence > that it's right, either: the way WORDS_PER_CHUNK is used looks pretty > random, and the comments aren't enough for me to figure it out. + * Eq1: nbuckets = exact_bucket + lossy_buckets + * Eq2: total_pages = exact_bucket + (lossy_buckets * WORDS_PER_CHUNK) I have derived my formulae based on these two equations. But, it assumes that all the lossy_buckets(chunk) will hold a WORDS_PER_CHUNK number of pages, which seems very optimistic. > > It's unclear what assumptions we should make while trying to estimate > the number of lossy pages. The effectiveness of lossification depends > on the average number of pages that get folded into a chunk; but how > many will that be? If we made some of the improvements proposed > above, it would probably be higher than it is now, but either way it's > not clear what number to use. One possible assumption is that the > pages that get lossified are exactly average, so: > > double entries_saved_per_lossy_page = Max(heap_pages_fetched / > tbm_max_entries - 1, 1.0); > lossy_pages = (heap_pages_fetched - tbm_max_entries) / > pages_saved_per_lossy_page; > exact_pages = heap_pages_fetched - lossy_pages; Seems ok until "entries_saved_per_lossy_page is 2" but if this become more than 2 then this calculation seems problamatic. Consider below examples: heap_pages_fetched = 100 and tbm_max_entries = 25 then with the above formulae lossy_pages = (100-25)/3 = 25, exact_pages=75 heap_pages_fetched = 100 and tbm_max_entries = 10 lossy_pages = (100-10)/9 = 10 and exact_pages=90 So by reducing the tbm_max_entries I am getting more exact pages, which seems wrong. It seems to me that if entries_saved_per_lossy_page is > 2 then if we calculate the exact_pages the same way we are calculating lossy_pages then it will be more accurate. i.e. exact_pages = (heap_pages_fetched - tbm_max_entries) /pages_saved_per_lossy_page; > > If the TBM fits into work_mem, heap_pages_fetched / tbm_max_entries is > the average number of entries per chunk, so one less than that value > is the number of pages we expect to save by lossifying an average > chunk and all of its entries. This might even be too optimistic given > the way tbm_lossify() works today, since there's currently no > guarantee we'd save anything at all; we might lossify a bunch of extra > stuff just for fun. > > Another possible assumption is that the pages that get lossified are > particularly good candidates for lossification -- they are, say, twice > as dense as the typical page. To reflect such an assumption, you'd > just make entries_saved_per_lossy_page bigger e.g. by inserting "2 *" > at the front of the formula. > > There could be other ways of computing this, too -- you've got one! -- > but I'm not sure that WORDS_PER_CHUNK should be involved at all. The > number of entries saved per lossy page will only be WORDS_PER_CHUNK - > 1 in the really fortunate case where not only does the algorithm > always pick the chunk with the most pages as the next one to lossify, > but also that chunk always has the maximum number of possible pages in > it. That isn't likely on real data distributions. > > Curious to hear more of your (or anyone's) thoughts on this. This is > a tricky problem and the performance gains you've gotten seem to show > this area is clearly worth some effort. > -- > Robert Haas > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

**
improve_lossify_approach2.patch**

*Description:* Binary data

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