Hi,
On 2021-05-11 19:02:00 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Why would rebuilding non-accessed relcache entries over and over help
> with that? I am not proposing that we do not mark all cache entries are
> invalid, or that we do not rebuild tables that aren't accessed.
A slightly more concrete proposal:
We introduce a new list of pending relcache invalidations. When
RelationCacheInvalidateEntry() or RelationCacheInvalidateEntry()
invalidate an entry, it gets put on that list (pretty much like the
existing rebuildList in RelationCacheInvalidate(), except longer lived).
When an invalid relcache entry is accessed, it is obviously immediately
rebuilt.
Normally RelationCacheInvalidate() eagerly processes that list, as well
as in ProcessInvalidationMessages(), ReceiveSharedInvalidMessages() etc.
But SearchCatCacheMiss() sets a flag that prevents the eager processing
in RelationCacheInvalidate() - that avoids needing to rebuild relcache
entries that aren't actually accessed as part of a cache miss
repeatedly.
I think just avoiding the repeated relcache rebuilds in
SearchCatCacheMiss() would reduce runtime significantly, even if
SearchCatCacheMiss() at the end would process that list of relcache
invalidations.
But I think it might not even be needed to achieve good coverage? It
might be fine to defer processing of the pending list until the next
RelationCacheInvalidate() triggered by a relation_open() outside of a
catcache miss (or obviously until it is accessed next)?
I think this scheme wouldn't just improve CCI performance, but
importantly also normal invalidation processing. Right now we'll often
re-build the same cache entry multiple times as part of a single
ReceiveSharedInvalidMessages() as it's pretty common that a relation is
the target of DDL in very close-by transactions.
Greetings,
Andres Freund