RE: [Patch] Optimize dropping of relation buffers using dlist

From: Jamison, Kirk/ジャミソン カーク <k.jamison@fujitsu.com>
> 2. Non-recovery Performance
> However, I still can't seem to find the cause of why the non-recovery
> performance does not change when compared to master. (1 min 15 s for the
> given test case below)
...
> 5. Measure VACUUM timing
> \timing
> VACUUM;

Oops, why are you using VACUUM?  Aren't you trying to speed up TRUNCATE?

Even if you wanted to utilize the truncation at the end of VACUUM for measuring truncation speed, your way measures the
wholeVACUUM processing, which includes the garbage collection process.  The garbage collection should dominate the
time.


> 3. Recovery Performance (hot standby, failover) OTOH, when executing
> 2. [Master] Measure VACUUM timing. Then stop server.
> \timing
> VACUUM;
> \q
> pg_ctl stop -mi -w
>
> 3. [Standby] Use the attached script to promote standby and measure the
> performance.
> # test.sh recovery

You didn't DELETE the table data as opposed to the non-recovery case.  Then, the replay of VACUUM should do nothing.
That'swhy you got a good performance number. 

TRUNCATE goes this path:

[non-recovery]
CommitTransaction
smgrdopendingdeletes
smgrdounlinkall
DropRelFileNodesAllBuffers

[recovery]
xact_redo_commit
DropRelationFiles
smgrdounlinkall
DropRelFileNodesAllBuffers

So, you need to modify DropRelFileNodesAllBuffers().  OTOH, DropRelFileNodeBuffers(), which you modified, is used in
VACUUM'struncation and another case.  The modification itself is useful because it can shorten the occasional hickup
duringautovacuum, so you don't remove the change. 

(The existence of these two paths is tricky; anyone on this thread didn't notice, and I forgot about it.  It would be
goodto refactor this, but it's a separate undertaking, I think.) 


Below are my comments for the code:

(1)
@@ -572,6 +572,9 @@ smgrnblocks(SMgrRelation reln, ForkNumber forknum, bool *accurate)
+    if (accurate != NULL)
+        *accurate = false;
+

The above change should be in 002, right?


(2)
+        /* Get the total nblocks for a relation's fork */

total nblocks -> number of blocks


(3)
+        if (nForkBlocks[i] == InvalidBlockNumber ||
+            nBlocksToInvalidate >= BUF_DROP_FULL_SCAN_THRESHOLD)
+            break;

With this code, you haven't addressed what I commented previously.  If the size of the first fork is accurate but that
ofthe second one is not, the first fork is processed in an optimized way while the second fork is done in the
traditionalway.  What you want to here is to only use the traditional way for all forks, right? 

So, remove the above change and replace

+        if (!accurate)
+        {
+            nForkBlocks[i] = InvalidBlockNumber;
+            break;
+        }

with

+        if (!accurate)
+            break;

And after the first for loop, put

    if (!accurate || nBlocksToInvalidate < BUF_DROP_FULL_SCAN_THRESHOLD)
        goto full_scan;

And remove the following code and instead put the "full_scan:" label there.

+    if (i >= nforks)
+        return;
+

Or, instead of using goto, you can write like this:

for (...)
    calculate # of invalidated blocks

if (accurate && nBlocksToInvalidate >= BUF_DROP_FULL_SCAN_THRESHOLD)
{
    do the optimized way;
    return;
}

do the traditional way;


I prefer using goto here because the loop nesting gets shallow.  But that's a matter of taste and you can choose
either.



Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa