Re: 8.3 / 8.2.6 restore comparison

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Heikki, are there any TODO items here?

Hmm. You could put an entry there for "profile and optimize COPY", with
the below list of ideas as a starting point. It's more about profiling
and performance testing than coding.

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 00:43:18 +0000
>>> "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Incidentally, I've been working on a patch to speed up CopyReadLine.
>>>> I was going to run some more tests first, but since we're talking
>>>> about it, I guess I should just post the patch. I'll post to
>>>> pgsql-patches shortly.
>>> On your post to patches you mentioned only about a 5% improvement.
>>> Don't get me wrong, 5% is 5% and I respect it greatly but as far as I
>>> can tell we are about 300% behind the curve.
>> Yeah. Looking at the profile, the time is spent really all over the
>> place. There's no one clear bottleneck to focus on. I think we could do
>> a few more ~5% improvements, but
>>
>> At some point, I think we have to bite the bullet and find a way to use
>> multiple CPUs for a single load. I don't have any good ideas or plans
>> for that, but hopefully someone does.
>>
>>> My tests were maxing out at ~22G an hour. On hardware that can do
>>> in 360G an hour and that is assuming > 50% overhead between OS, libs,
>>> etc... I have no choice but to conclude we have a much, much deeper and
>>> fundamental issue going on with COPY. I am inspired by Itagaki Takahiro
>>> and his batch update of indexes which should help greatly overall but
>>> doesn't help my specific issue.
>> Yep, the index build idea is an I/O improvement, not a CPU one.
>>
>>> Forgive me for not being a C programmer and Alvaro is not online so I
>>> would vet these questions with him first.
>>>
>>> I know that copy is in theory a bulk loader but, when performing the
>>> readline how many lines are we reading? Do we read up to 8192? Or do we
>>> shove in say 8megs of data before we invoke DoCopy?
>> We read 64 KB at a time, and then CopyReadLineText returns one line at a
>> time from that buffer.
>>
>> Looking at your profile more, and after the memchr patch, the "raw input
>> side" of copy, consisting of reading the data from disk in 64KB blocks,
>> splitting that into lines, and splitting lines into columns, still takes
>> ~20% of the CPU time. I suspect CopyReadAttributesText is the biggest
>> culprit there.
>>
>> You could avoid the ~8% spent in XLogInsert in PostgreSQL 8.3, by
>> creating the table (or truncating it) in the same transaction with the COPY.
>>
>> After that, heap_formtuple is high on the list. I wonder if we could do
>> something about that.
>>
>>> I am just curious if there is some simple low hanging fruit that is
>>> possibly missing.
>> I don't see any piece of code that's causing problems. We can shave off
>> a few percents here and there I think, but don't expect a 300%
>> improvement anytime soon. A few ideas I've thought about are:
>>
>> - use a specialized version of strtol, for base 10. That won't help on
>> your table, but I've seen strtol consume a significant amount of time on
>> tables with numeric/integer columns.
>>
>> - Instead of pallocing and memcpying the text fields, leave a little bit
>> of room between fields in the attribute_buf, and write the varlen header
>> there directly. This might help you since your table has a lot of text
>> fields.
>>
>> - Instead of the normal PG function calling conventions, provide
>> specialized fastpath input functions for the most common data types.
>> InputFunctionCall consumed 4.5% of the CPU time in your profile.
>>
>> - Use a simpler memory context implementation, that's like a stack with
>> no pfree support, for the per-tuple context.
>>
>> --
>> Heikki Linnakangas
>> EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
>>
>> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
>> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
>> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com