Обсуждение: pg_stat_statements cluttered with "DEALLOCATE dbdpg_p*"
Hello pgdevs, I noticed that my pg_stat_statements is cluttered with hundreds of entries like "DEALLOCATE dbdpg_p123456_7", occuring each only once. It seems to me that it would be more helful if these similar entries where aggregated together, that is if the query "normalization" could ignore the name of the descriptor. Any thoughts about this? -- Fabien.
On 04/01/2014 10:45 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > Hello pgdevs, > > I noticed that my pg_stat_statements is cluttered with hundreds of > entries like "DEALLOCATE dbdpg_p123456_7", occuring each only once. > > It seems to me that it would be more helful if these similar entries > where aggregated together, that is if the query "normalization" could > ignore the name of the descriptor. > > Any thoughts about this? You might find this relevant: <http://blog.endpoint.com/2014/02/perl-dbdpg-postgresql-prepared-statement.html> cheers andrew
>> I noticed that my pg_stat_statements is cluttered with hundreds of entries >> like "DEALLOCATE dbdpg_p123456_7", occuring each only once. >> >> It seems to me that it would be more helful if these similar entries where >> aggregated together, that is if the query "normalization" could ignore the >> name of the descriptor. >> >> Any thoughts about this? > > You might find this relevant: > <http://blog.endpoint.com/2014/02/perl-dbdpg-postgresql-prepared-statement.html> Indeed. Thanks for the pointer. I had guessed who the culprit was, and the new behavior mentioned in the blog entry may help when the new driver version hits my debian box. In the mean time, ISTM that progress can be achieved on pg_stat_statements normalization as well. -- Fabien.
Hello devs, > I noticed that my pg_stat_statements is cluttered with hundreds of entries > like "DEALLOCATE dbdpg_p123456_7", occuring each only once. Here is a patch and sql test file to: * normalize DEALLOCATE utility statements in pg_stat_statements Some drivers such as DBD:Pg generate process/counter-based identifiers for PREPARE, which result in hundreds of DEALLOCATE being tracked, although the prepared query may be the same. This is also consistent with the corresponding PREPARE not being tracked (although the underlying prepared query *is* tracked). ** Note **: another simpler option would be to skip deallocates altogether by inserting a "&& !IsA(parsetree, DeallocateStmt)" at the beginning of pgss_ProcessUtility(). I'm not sure what is best. -- Fabien.
Hi, On 2014-04-01 16:45:29 +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote: > I noticed that my pg_stat_statements is cluttered with hundreds of entries > like "DEALLOCATE dbdpg_p123456_7", occuring each only once. Why isn't the driver using the extended query protocol? Sending PREPARE/EXECUTE/DEALLOCATE wastes roundtrips... > It seems to me that it would be more helful if these similar entries where > aggregated together, that is if the query "normalization" could ignore the > name of the descriptor. I'm not in favor of this. If there's DEALLOCATEs that are frequent enough to drown out other entries you should a) Consider using the extended query protocol. b) consider using unnamed prepared statements to reduce the number of roundtrips c) wonder why PREPARE/DEALLOCATE are so much more frequent than the actualy query execution. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
On 2014-07-20 13:54:01 +0200, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2014-04-01 16:45:29 +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > I noticed that my pg_stat_statements is cluttered with hundreds of entries > > like "DEALLOCATE dbdpg_p123456_7", occuring each only once. > > Why isn't the driver using the extended query protocol? Sending > PREPARE/EXECUTE/DEALLOCATE wastes roundtrips... Hm. It's probably because libqp doesn't expose sending Close message for prepared statements :(. No idea why. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
On 2014-07-20 14:06, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2014-07-20 13:54:01 +0200, Andres Freund wrote: >> On 2014-04-01 16:45:29 +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote: >>> I noticed that my pg_stat_statements is cluttered with hundreds of entries >>> like "DEALLOCATE dbdpg_p123456_7", occuring each only once. >> >> Why isn't the driver using the extended query protocol? Sending >> PREPARE/EXECUTE/DEALLOCATE wastes roundtrips... > > Hm. It's probably because libqp doesn't expose sending Close message for > prepared statements :(. No idea why. Yeah, I always considered that a missing feature, and even wrote a patch to add it at some point. I wonder what happened to it. .marko
Hello Andres, > Why isn't the driver using the extended query protocol? Sending > PREPARE/EXECUTE/DEALLOCATE wastes roundtrips... > >> It seems to me that it would be more helful if these similar entries where >> aggregated together, that is if the query "normalization" could ignore the >> name of the descriptor. > > I'm not in favor of this. If there's DEALLOCATEs that are frequent > enough to drown out other entries you should Thanks for the advice. I'm not responsible for the application nor the driver, and I think that pg_stat_statements should be consistent and reasonable independently of drivers and applications. > a) Consider using the extended query protocol. > b) consider using unnamed prepared statements to reduce the number of > roundtrips > c) wonder why PREPARE/DEALLOCATE are so much more frequent than the > actualy query execution. (1) I'm not responsible for DBD::Pg allocating "random" names to prepared statements, even if the queries are the same, and that accumulate over time (weeks, possibly months). (2) pg_stat_statements is currently inconsistent anyway, as PREPARE is not counted (but the underlying query is on each EXECUTE), although its corresponding DEALLOCATE is counted, so I think that something is needed for consistency. -- Fabien.
On 2014-07-20 14:43:27 +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote: > >a) Consider using the extended query protocol. > >b) consider using unnamed prepared statements to reduce the number of > > roundtrips > >c) wonder why PREPARE/DEALLOCATE are so much more frequent than the > > actualy query execution. > > (1) I'm not responsible for DBD::Pg allocating "random" names to prepared > statements, even if the queries are the same, and that accumulate over time > (weeks, possibly months). > > (2) pg_stat_statements is currently inconsistent anyway, as PREPARE is not > counted (but the underlying query is on each EXECUTE), although its > corresponding DEALLOCATE is counted, so I think that something is needed for > consistency. That's because PREPARE isn't executed as it's own statement, but done on the protocol level (which will need noticeably fewer messages). There's no builtin logic to ignore actual PREPARE statements. So I don't think your consistency argument counts as much here. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
> That's because PREPARE isn't executed as it's own statement, but done on
> the protocol level (which will need noticeably fewer messages). There's
> no builtin logic to ignore actual PREPARE statements.
ISTM that there is indeed a special handling in function
pgss_ProcessUtility for PREPARE and EXECUTE:
/* * If it's an EXECUTE statement, we don't track it and don't
increment the * nesting level. This allows the cycles to be charged to the
underlying * PREPARE instead (by the Executor hooks), which is much more
useful. * * We also don't track execution of PREPARE. If we did, we would
get one * hash table entry for the PREPARE (with hash calculated from the
query * string), and then a different one with the same query string
(but hash * calculated from the query tree) would be used to accumulate
costs of * ensuing EXECUTEs. This would be confusing, and inconsistent
with other * cases where planning time is not included at all. */ if (pgss_track_utility && pgss_enabled()
&& !IsA(parsetree, ExecuteStmt) && !IsA(parsetree, PrepareStmt)) ... standard handling ... else
... special "no" handling ...
> So I don't think your consistency argument counts as much here.
I think that given the above code, my argument stands reasonably.
If you do not like my normalization hack (I do not like it much either:-),
I have suggested to add "&& !IsA(parsetree, DeallocateStmt)" to the
condition above, which would ignore DEALLOCATE as PREPARE and EXECUTE are
currently and rightfully ignored.
--
Fabien.
>> That's because PREPARE isn't executed as it's own statement, but done on >> the protocol level (which will need noticeably fewer messages). There's >> no builtin logic to ignore actual PREPARE statements. > > ISTM that there is indeed a special handling in function > pgss_ProcessUtility for PREPARE and EXECUTE: > > [...] For completeness purpose, here is the one-liner patch to handle DEALLOCATE as PREPARE & EXECUTE are handled. It is cleaner than the other one, but then DEALLOCATE disappear from the table, as PREPARE and EXECUTE do. -- Fabien.
On 2014-07-20 17:01:50 +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > >That's because PREPARE isn't executed as it's own statement, but done on > >the protocol level (which will need noticeably fewer messages). There's > >no builtin logic to ignore actual PREPARE statements. > > ISTM that there is indeed a special handling in function pgss_ProcessUtility > for PREPARE and EXECUTE: > > /* > * If it's an EXECUTE statement, we don't track it and don't increment the > * nesting level. This allows the cycles to be charged to the underlying > * PREPARE instead (by the Executor hooks), which is much more useful. > * > * We also don't track execution of PREPARE. If we did, we would get one > * hash table entry for the PREPARE (with hash calculated from the query > * string), and then a different one with the same query string (but hash > * calculated from the query tree) would be used to accumulate costs of > * ensuing EXECUTEs. This would be confusing, and inconsistent with other > * cases where planning time is not included at all. > */ > if (pgss_track_utility && pgss_enabled() && > !IsA(parsetree, ExecuteStmt) && > !IsA(parsetree, PrepareStmt)) > ... standard handling ... > else > ... special "no" handling ... > > >So I don't think your consistency argument counts as much here. > > I think that given the above code, my argument stands reasonably. Ick. You have a point. > If you do not like my normalization hack (I do not like it much either:-), I > have suggested to add "&& !IsA(parsetree, DeallocateStmt)" to the condition > above, which would ignore DEALLOCATE as PREPARE and EXECUTE are currently > and rightfully ignored. Well, EXECUTE isn't actually ignored, but tracked via the execution time. But that doesn't diminish your point with PREPARE. If we do something we should go for the && !IsA(parsetree, DeallocateStmt), not the normalization. The latter is pretty darn bogus. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
> [...]. If we do something we should go for the && !IsA(parsetree, > DeallocateStmt), not the normalization. Ok. > The latter is pretty darn bogus. Yep:-) I'm fine with ignoring DEALLOCATE altogether. -- Fabien.
Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2014-07-20 17:01:50 +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>> If you do not like my normalization hack (I do not like it much either:-), I
>> have suggested to add "&& !IsA(parsetree, DeallocateStmt)" to the condition
>> above, which would ignore DEALLOCATE as PREPARE and EXECUTE are currently
>> and rightfully ignored.
> Well, EXECUTE isn't actually ignored, but tracked via the execution
> time. But that doesn't diminish your point with PREPARE. If we do
> something we should go for the && !IsA(parsetree, DeallocateStmt), not
> the normalization. The latter is pretty darn bogus.
Agreed. I think basically the reasoning here is "since we don't track
PREPARE or EXECUTE, we shouldn't track DEALLOCATE either".
However, this is certainly a behavioral change. Perhaps squeeze it
into 9.4, but not the back braches?
regards, tom lane
>>> If you do not like my normalization hack (I do not like it much either:-), I >>> have suggested to add "&& !IsA(parsetree, DeallocateStmt)" to the condition >>> above, which would ignore DEALLOCATE as PREPARE and EXECUTE are currently >>> and rightfully ignored. > >> Well, EXECUTE isn't actually ignored, but tracked via the execution >> time. But that doesn't diminish your point with PREPARE. If we do >> something we should go for the && !IsA(parsetree, DeallocateStmt), not >> the normalization. The latter is pretty darn bogus. > > Agreed. I think basically the reasoning here is "since we don't track > PREPARE or EXECUTE, we shouldn't track DEALLOCATE either". Yes. It is not just because it is nicely symmetric, it is also annoying to have hundreds of useless DEALLOCATE stats in the table. > However, this is certainly a behavioral change. Perhaps squeeze it > into 9.4, That would be nice, and the one-liner looks safe enough. > but not the back braches? Yep. I doubt that pg_stat_statements users rely on statistics about DEALLOCATE, so back patching the would be quite safe as well, but I would not advocate it. -- Fabien.
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > However, this is certainly a behavioral change. Perhaps squeeze it > into 9.4, but not the back braches? +1 -- Peter Geoghegan
On 07/20/2014 11:51 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> However, this is certainly a behavioral change. Perhaps squeeze it >> into 9.4, but not the back braches? > > +1 Ok, done. (We're a month closer to releasing 9.4 than we were when this consensus was reached, but I think it's still OK...) - Heikki