В Ср, 13/07/2022 в 10:09 -0700, Nathan Bossart пишет:
> Hi hackers,
>
> A few years ago, there was a proposal to create hash tables for long
> [sub]xip arrays in snapshots [0], but the thread seems to have fizzled out.
> I was curious whether this idea still showed measurable benefits, so I
> revamped the patch and ran the same test as before [1]. Here are the
> results for 60₋second runs on an r5d.24xlarge with the data directory on
> the local NVMe storage:
>
> writers HEAD patch diff
> ----------------------------
> 16 659 664 +1%
> 32 645 663 +3%
> 64 659 692 +5%
> 128 641 716 +12%
> 256 619 610 -1%
> 512 530 702 +32%
> 768 469 582 +24%
> 1000 367 577 +57%
>
> As before, the hash table approach seems to provide a decent benefit at
> higher client counts, so I felt it was worth reviving the idea.
>
> The attached patch has some key differences from the previous proposal.
> For example, the new patch uses simplehash instead of open-coding a new
> hash table. Also, I've bumped up the threshold for creating hash tables to
> 128 based on the results of my testing. The attached patch waits until a
> lookup of [sub]xip before generating the hash table, so we only need to
> allocate enough space for the current elements in the [sub]xip array, and
> we avoid allocating extra memory for workloads that do not need the hash
> tables. I'm slightly worried about increasing the number of memory
> allocations in this code path, but the results above seemed encouraging on
> that front.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> [0] https://postgr.es/m/35960b8af917e9268881cd8df3f88320%40postgrespro.ru
> [1] https://postgr.es/m/057a9a95-19d2-05f0-17e2-f46ff20e9b3e%402ndquadrant.com
>
I'm glad my idea has been reborn.
Well, may be simplehash is not bad idea.
While it certainly consumes more memory and CPU instructions.
I'll try to review.
regards,
Yura Sokolov