Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum

On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 10:56 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 3:02 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 6:50 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 6:33 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > Attached updated patch set. 0001 patch introduces new index AM field
> > > amcanparallelvacuum. All index AMs except for gist sets true for now.
> > > 0002 patch incorporated the all comments I got so far.
> > >
> >
> > I haven't studied the latest patch in detail, but it seems you are
> > still assuming that all indexes will have the same amount of shared
> > memory for index stats and copying it in the same way.
>
> Yeah I thought we agreed at least to have canparallelvacuum and if an
> index AM cannot support parallel index vacuuming like gist, it returns
> false.
>
> > I thought we
> > agreed that each index AM should do this on its own.  The basic
> > problem is as of now we see this problem only with the Gist index, but
> > some other index AM's could also have a similar problem.
>
> Okay. I'm thinking we're going to have a new callback to ack index AMs
> the size of the structure using within both ambulkdelete and
> amvacuumcleanup. But copying it to DSM can be done by the core because
> it knows how many bytes need to be copied to DSM. Is that okay?
>

That sounds okay.

> >
> > Another major problem with previous and this patch version is that the
> > cost-based vacuum concept seems to be entirely broken.  Basically,
> > each parallel vacuum worker operates independently w.r.t vacuum delay
> > and cost.  Assume that the overall I/O allowed for vacuum operation is
> > X after which it will sleep for some time, reset the balance and
> > continue.  In the patch, each worker will be allowed to perform X
> > before which it can sleep and also there is no coordination for the
> > same with master backend.  This is somewhat similar to memory usage
> > problem, but a bit more tricky because here we can't easily split the
> > I/O for each of the worker.
> >
> > One idea could be that we somehow map vacuum costing related
> > parameters to the shared memory (dsm) which the vacuum operation is
> > using and then allow workers to coordinate.  This way master and
> > worker processes will have the same view of balance cost and can act
> > accordingly.
> >
> > The other idea could be that we come up with some smart way to split
> > the I/O among workers.  Initially, I thought we could try something as
> > we do for autovacuum workers (see autovac_balance_cost), but I think
> > that will require much more math.  Before launching workers, we need
> > to compute the remaining I/O (heap operation would have used
> > something) after which we need to sleep and continue the operation and
> > then somehow split it equally across workers.  Once the workers are
> > finished, then need to let master backend know how much I/O they have
> > consumed and then master backend can add it to it's current I/O
> > consumed.
> >
> > I think this problem matters because the vacuum delay is useful for
> > large vacuums and this patch is trying to exactly solve that problem,
> > so we can't ignore this problem.  I am not yet sure what is the best
> > solution to this problem, but I think we need to do something for it.
> >
>
> I guess that the concepts of vacuum delay contradicts the concepts of
> parallel vacuum. The concepts of parallel vacuum would be to use more
> resource to make vacuum faster. Vacuum delays balances I/O during
> vacuum in order to avoid I/O spikes by vacuum but parallel vacuum
> rather concentrates I/O in shorter duration.
>

You have a point, but the way it is currently working in the patch
doesn't make much sense.  Basically, each of the parallel workers will
be allowed to use a complete I/O limit which is actually a limit for
the entire vacuum operation.  It doesn't give any consideration to the
work done for the heap.

> Since we need to share
> the memory in entire system we need to deal with the memory issue but
> disks are different.
>
> If we need to deal with this problem how about just dividing
> vacuum_cost_limit by the parallel degree and setting it to worker's
> vacuum_cost_limit?
>

How will we take the I/O done by heap into consideration?  The
vacuum_cost_limit is the cost for the entire vacuum operation not
separately for heap and indexes.  What makes you think that
considering the limit for heap and index separately is not
problematic?


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