Re: drop/truncate table sucks for large values of shared buffers

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Simon Riggs
Тема Re: drop/truncate table sucks for large values of shared buffers
Дата
Msg-id CANP8+j+m=hHHf37nczTHLOE-obQwEAdxT8RdDMZFDih53SuYFg@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: drop/truncate table sucks for large values of shared buffers  (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>)
Ответы Re: drop/truncate table sucks for large values of shared buffers  (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>)
Re: drop/truncate table sucks for large values of shared buffers  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On 2 July 2015 at 14:08, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:
On 06/27/2015 07:45 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
Sometime back on one of the PostgreSQL blog [1], there was
discussion about the performance of drop/truncate table for
large values of shared_buffers and it seems that as the value
of shared_buffers increase the performance of drop/truncate
table becomes worse.  I think those are not often used operations,
so it never became priority to look into improving them if possible.

I have looked into it and found that the main reason for such
a behaviour is that for those operations it traverses whole
shared_buffers and it seems to me that we don't need that
especially for not-so-big tables.  We can optimize that path
by looking into buff mapping table for the pages that exist in
shared_buffers for the case when table size is less than some
threshold (say 25%) of shared buffers.

Attached patch implements the above idea and I found that
performance doesn't dip much with patch even with large value
of shared_buffers.  I have also attached script and sql file used
to take performance data.

I'm marking this as "returned with feedback" in the commitfest. In addition to the issues raised so far, ISTM that the patch makes dropping a very large table with small shared_buffers slower (DropForkSpecificBuffers() is O(n) where n is the size of the relation, while the current method is O(shared_buffers))

There are no unresolved issues with the approach, nor is it true it is slower. If you think there are some, you should say what they are, not act high handedly to reject a patch without reason.

I concur that we should explore using a radix tree or something else that would naturally allow you to find all buffers for relation/database X quickly.

I doubt that it can be managed efficiently while retaining optimal memory management. If it can its going to be very low priority (or should be).

This approach works, so lets do it, now. If someone comes up with a better way later, great.

--
Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Fujii Masao
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: WALWriter active during recovery
Следующее
От: Simon Riggs
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: WALWriter active during recovery