On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 4:32 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kap...@huawei.com>
> wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 15, 2012 10:19 PM Merlin Moncure wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kap...@huawei.com>
> >> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Sure, although in scans we are using ring buffer as well so in
> >> practical sense the results are pretty close.
> >>
> >> > b. Considering sometimes people want VACUUM to run when system is not
> >> busy,
> >> > the chances of generating more overall I/O in system can be
> >> > more.
> >>
> >> It's hard to imagine overall i/o load increasing. However, longer
> >> vacuum times should be considered. A bigger issue is that we are
> >> missing an early opportunity to set the all visible bit. vacuum is
> >> doing:
> >>
> >> if (all_visible)
> >> {
> >> TransactionId xmin;
> >>
> >> if (!(tuple.t_data->t_infomask & HEAP_XMIN_COMMITTED))
> >> {
> >> all_visible = false;
> >> break;
> >> }
> >>
> >> assuming the cache is working and vacuum rolls around after a scan,
> >> you lost the opportunity to set all_visible flag where previously it
> >> would have been set, thereby dismantling the positive effect of an
> >> index only scan. AFAICT, this is the only case where vaccum is
> >> directly interfacing with hint bits. This could be construed as a
> >> violation of heapam API? Maybe if that's an issue we could proxy that
> >> check to a heaptuple/tqual.c maintained function (in the same manner
> >> as HeapTupleSetHintBits) so that the cache bit could be uniformly
> >> checked.
> >
> > I think we need to think of some tests to check if Vacuum or any other
> > impact has not been created due to this change.
> > I will devise tests during review of this patch.
> > However if you have more ideas then share the same which will make tests
> of
> > this patch more strong.
> > For functional/performance test of this patch, one of my colleague Hari
> Babu
> > will also work along with me on it.
>
> Thanks. So far, Atri ran some quick n dirty tests to see if there
> were any regressions. He benched a large scan followed by vacuum. So
> far, results are inconclusive so better testing methodologies will
> definitely be greatly appreciated. One of the challenges with working
> in this part of the code is that it's quite difficult to make changes
> without impacting at least some workloads.
>
> merlin
>
Thanks a ton Amit and your colleague Hari for volunteering to review the
patch.
I ran some benchmarks and came up with the following results:
With our code
atri@atri-Aspire-4740:~/postgresql-9.2.1/contrib/pgbench$ ./pgbench atri1
-n -f bench2.sql -c 8 -T 300
transaction type: Custom query
scaling factor: 1
query mode: simple
number of clients: 8
number of threads: 1
duration: 300 s
number of transactions actually processed: 412
tps = 1.366142 (including connections establishing)
tps = 1.366227 (excluding connections establishing)
Without our code
atri@atri-Aspire-4740:~/postgresql-9.2.1/contrib/pgbench$ ./pgbench atri1
-n -f bench2.sql -c 8 -T 300
transaction type: Custom query
scaling factor: 1
query mode: simple
number of clients: 8
number of threads: 1
duration: 300 s
number of transactions actually processed: 378
tps = 1.244333 (including connections establishing)
tps = 1.244447 (excluding connections establishing)
The SQL file is attached.
Please let us know if you need any more details.
Atri
--
Regards,
Atri
*l'apprenant*
bench2.sql
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
