From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mahendra Singh <mahi6run(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Block level parallel vacuum |
Date: | 2019-10-25 02:07:13 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1+6j5Ywjo-hURAKQNGDk4-g-Vf-dW0uBYTyLYDpn827_A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 8:12 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 3:21 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > I have come up with the POC for approach (a).
> >
> > The idea is
> > 1) Before launching the worker divide the current VacuumCostBalance
> > among workers so that workers start accumulating the balance from that
> > point.
> > 2) Also, divide the VacuumCostLimit among the workers.
> > 3) Once the worker are done with the index vacuum, send back the
> > remaining balance with the leader.
> > 4) The leader will sum all the balances and add that to its current
> > VacuumCostBalance. And start accumulating its balance from this
> > point.
> >
> > I was trying to test how is the behaviour of the vacuum I/O limit, but
> > I could not find an easy way to test that so I just put the tracepoint
> > in the code and just checked that at what point we are giving the
> > delay.
> > I also printed the cost balance at various point to see that after how
> > much I/O accumulation we are hitting the delay. Please feel free to
> > suggest a better way to test this.
> >
> > I have printed these logs for parallel vacuum patch (v30) vs v(30) +
> > patch for dividing i/o limit (attached with the mail)
> >
> > Note: Patch and the test results are attached.
> >
>
> Thank you!
>
> For approach (a) the basic idea I've come up with is that we have a
> shared balance value on DSM and each workers including the leader
> process add its local balance value to it in vacuum_delay_point, and
> then based on the shared value workers sleep. I'll submit that patch
> with other updates.
>
I think it would be better if we can prepare the I/O balance patches
on top of main patch and evaluate both approaches. We can test both
the approaches and integrate the one which turned out to be good.
Note that, I will be away next week, so I won't be able to review your
latest patch unless you are planning to post today or tomorrow.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com | 2019-10-25 02:11:55 | RE: Fix of fake unlogged LSN initialization |
Previous Message | tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com | 2019-10-25 02:07:04 | RE: Fix of fake unlogged LSN initialization |