Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 9:12 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2. Provide a new reloption to specify Wal compression
>>     for update operation on table
>>     Create table tbl(c1 char(100)) With (compress_wal = true);
>>
>>     Alternative options:
>>     a. compress_wal can take input as operation, e.g. 'insert', 'update',
>>     b. use alternate syntax:
>>         Create table tbl(c1 char(100))  Compress Wal For Update;
>>     c. anything better?
>
> I think WITH (compress_wal = true) is pretty good.  I don't understand
> your point about taking the operation as input, because this only
> applies to updates.  But we could try to work "update" into the name
> of the setting somehow, so as to be less likely to conflict with
> future additions, like maybe wal_compress_update.  I think the
> alternate syntax you propose is clearly worse, because it would
> involve adding new keywords, something we try to avoid.

   Changed name to wal_compress_update in attached version of
   patch.

>
>> Points to consider
>> -----------------------------
>>
>> 1. As the current algorithm store the entry for same chunks at head of list,
>>    it will always find last but one chunk (we don't store last 4 bytes) for
>>    long matching string during match phase in encoding (pgrb_delta_encode).
>>
>>    We can improve it either by storing same chunks at end of list instead of at
>>    head or by trying to find a good_match technique used in lz algorithm.
>>    Finding good_match technique can have overhead in some of the cases
>>    when there is actually no match.
>
> I don't see what the good_match thing has to do with anything in the
> Rabin algorithm.  But I do think there might be a bug here, which is
> that, unless I'm misinterpreting something, hp is NOT the end of the
> chunk.  After calling pgrb_hash_init(), we've looked at the first FOUR
> bytes of the input.  If we find that we have a zero hash value at that
> point, shouldn't the chunk size be 4, not 1?  And similarly if we find
> it after sucking in one more byte, shouldn't the chunk size be 5, not
> 2?  Right now, we're deciding where the chunks should end based on the
> data in the chunk plus the following 3 bytes, and that seems wonky.  I
> would expect us to include all of those bytes in the chunk.

Okay, I had modified the patch to consider the  the data plus following
3 bytes inside chunk. To resolve it, after calling pgrb_hash_init(), we
need to initialize chunk size as 4 and once we find the chunk, increase
the next chunk start position by adding chunk size to it. Similarly during
match phase while copying unmatched, data, make sure to copy 3
bytes ahead of current position as those will not be considered for new
chunk.


> In the Rabin algorithm, we shouldn't try to find a longer match.  The
> match should end at the chunk end, period.  Otherwise, you lose the
> shift-resistant property of the algorithm.

Okay for now, I have commented the code in pgrb_find_match() which
tries to find longer match after chunk boundary. The reason for just
commenting it rather than removing is that I fear it might have negative
impact on WAL reduction atleast for the cases where most of the data
is repetitive. I have done some performance test and data is at end of
mail, if you are okay with it, then I will remove this code altogether.

>> 2. Another optimization that we can do in pgrb_find_match(), is that
>> currently if
>>     it doesn't find the first chunk (chunk got by hash index) matching, it
>>     continues to find the match in other chunks. I am not sure if there is any
>>     benefit to search for other chunks if first one is not matching.
>
> Well, if you took that out, I suspect it would hurt the compression
> ratio.  Unless the CPU savings are substantial, I'd leave it alone.

I kept this code intact.

>> 3. We can move code from pg_lzcompress.c to some new file pg_rbcompress.c,
>>     if we want to move, then we need to either duplicate some common macros
>>     like pglz_out_tag or keep it common, but might be change the name.
>
> +1 for a new file.

Done, after moving code to new file, it looks better.

>> 4. Decide on min and max chunksize. (currently kept as 2 and 4 respectively).
>>     The point to consider is that if we keep bigger chunk sizes, then it can
>>     save us on CPU cycles, but less reduction in Wal, on the other side if we
>>     keep it small it can have better reduction in Wal but consume more CPU
>>     cycles.
>
> Whoa.  That seems way too small.  Since PGRB_PATTERN_AFTER_BITS is 4,
> the average length of a chunk is about 16 bytes.  It makes little
> sense to have the maximum chunk size be 25% of the expected chunk
> length.  I'd recommend making the maximum chunk length something like
> 4 * PGRB_CONST_NUM, and the minimum chunk length maybe something like
> 4.

Okay changed as per suggestion.

>> 5. kept an guc variable 'wal_update_compression_ratio', for test purpose, we
>>    can remove it before commit.
>
> Let's remove it now.

Done.

>> 7. docs needs to be updated, tab completion needs some work.
>
> Tab completion can be skipped for now, but documentation is important.

Updated Create Table documentation.

Performance Data
-----------------------------
Non-default settings:
autovacuum =off
checkpoint_segments =128
checkpoint_timeout = 10min

Unpatched
-------------------
                testname                             | wal_generated |
    duration
----------------------------------------------------------+----------------------+------------------
 one short and one long field, no change |    1054923224 |  33.101135969162

After pgrb_delta_encoding_v4
---------------------------------------------

                testname                             | wal_generated |
    duration
----------------------------------------------------------+----------------------+------------------
 one short and one long field, no change |     877859144 | 30.6749138832092


Temporary Changes
(Revert Max Chunksize = 4 and logic of finding longer match)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 testname                            | wal_generated |
    duration
----------------------------------------------------------+----------------------+------------------
 one short and one long field, no change |     677337304 | 25.4048750400543


Summarization of test result:
1. If we don't try to find longer match, then it will have more tags in encoded
    tuple which will increase the overall length of encoded tuple.

Note -
a. I have taken data just for one case to check whether the effect of changes
    is acceptable.


With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com