Re: Improve eviction algorithm in ReorderBuffer
От | Masahiko Sawada |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Improve eviction algorithm in ReorderBuffer |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAD21AoA6=+tL=btB_s9N+cZK7tKz1W=PQyNq72nzjUcdyE+wZw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Improve eviction algorithm in ReorderBuffer (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Improve eviction algorithm in ReorderBuffer
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 7:37 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 12:13 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 2:09 PM vignesh C <vignesh21@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 at 10:05, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 14, 2024 at 12:02 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've attached new version patches. > > > > > > > > Since the previous patch conflicts with the current HEAD, I've > > > > attached the rebased patches. > > > > > > Thanks for the updated patch. > > > One comment: > > > I felt we can mention the improvement where we update memory > > > accounting info at transaction level instead of per change level which > > > is done in ReorderBufferCleanupTXN, ReorderBufferTruncateTXN, and > > > ReorderBufferSerializeTXN also in the commit message: > > > > Agreed. > > > > I think the patch is in good shape. I'll push the patch with the > > suggestion next week, barring any objections. > > > > Few minor comments: > 1. > @@ -3636,6 +3801,8 @@ ReorderBufferCheckMemoryLimit(ReorderBuffer *rb) > Assert(txn->nentries_mem == 0); > } > > + ReorderBufferMaybeResetMaxHeap(rb); > + > > Can we write a comment about why this reset is required here? > Otherwise, the reason is not apparent. Yes, added. > > 2. > Although using max-heap to select the largest > + * transaction is effective when there are many transactions being decoded, > + * there is generally no need to use it as long as all transactions being > + * decoded are top-level transactions. Therefore, we use MaxConnections as the > + * threshold so we can prevent switching to the state unless we use > + * subtransactions. > + */ > +#define MAX_HEAP_TXN_COUNT_THRESHOLD MaxConnections > > Isn't using max-heap equally effective in finding the largest > transaction whether there are top-level or top-level plus > subtransactions? This comment indicates it is only effective when > there are subtransactions. You're right. Updated the comment. I've attached the updated patches. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: