Re: [Patch][WiP] Tweaked LRU for shared buffers
| От | Benjamin Manes |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [Patch][WiP] Tweaked LRU for shared buffers |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAGu0=MM4jwHrcWzL246B9Q7-73LFKSnXWRC8RYEiv+Y7=JF=Jw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [Patch][WiP] Tweaked LRU for shared buffers (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
If you mean "synchronized" in terms of multi-threading and locks, then this is a solved problem in terms of caching. My limited understanding is that the buffer rings are used to protect the cache from being polluted by scans which flush the LRU-like algorithms. This allows those policies to capture more frequent items. It also avoids lock contention on the cache due to writes caused by misses, where Clock allows lock-free reads but uses a global lock on writes. A smarter cache eviction policy and concurrency model can handle this without needing buffer rings to compensate.
I was not involved with Andrey and his team's work, which looks like a very promising first pass. I can try to clarify a few minor details.
What is CAR? Did you mean ARC, perhaps?
CAR is the Clock variants of ARC: CAR: Clock with Adaptive Replacement
I believe the main interest in ARC is its claim of adaptability with high hit rates. Unfortunately the reality is less impressive as it fails to handle many frequency workloads, e.g. poor scan resistance, and the adaptivity is poor due to the accesses being quite noisy. For W-TinyLFU, we have recent improvements which show near perfect adaptivity in our stress case that results in double the hit rate of ARC and is less than 1% from optimal.
Can you point us to the thread/email discussing those ideas? I have tried searching through archives, but I haven't found anything :-(
This thread doesn't explain Andrey's work, but includes my minor contribution. The longer thread discusses the interest in CAR, et al.
Are you suggesting to get rid of the buffer rings we use for sequential scans, for example? IMHO that's going to be tricky, e.g. because of synchronized sequential scans.
Somebody should write a patch to make buffer eviction completely random, without aiming to get it committed. That isn't as bad of a strategy as it sounds, and it would help with assessing improvements in this area.
A related and helpful patch would be to capture the access log and provide anonymized traces. We have a simulator with dozens of policies to quickly provide a breakdown. That would let you know the hit rates before deciding on the policy to adopt.
Cheers.
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 4:22 PM Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On 2/16/19 12:51 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 3:30 PM Tomas Vondra
> <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> That TPS chart looks a bit ... wild. How come the master jumps so much
>> up and down? That's a bit suspicious, IMHO.
>
> Somebody should write a patch to make buffer eviction completely
> random, without aiming to get it committed. That isn't as bad of a
> strategy as it sounds, and it would help with assessing improvements
> in this area.
>
> We know that the cache replacement algorithm behaves randomly when
> there is extreme contention, while also slowing everything down due
> to maintaining the clock.
Possibly, although I still find it strange that the throughput first
grows, then at shared_buffers 1GB it drops, and then at 3GB it starts
growing again. Considering this is on 200GB data set, I doubt the
pressure/contention is much different with 1GB and 3GB, but maybe it is.
> A unambiguously better caching algorithm would at a minimum be able
> to beat our "cheap random replacement" prototype as well as the
> existing clocksweep algorithm in most or all cases. That seems like a
> reasonably good starting point, at least.
>
Yes, comparison to cheap random replacement would be an interesting
experiment.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: