From: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
Subject: | Re: Opportunistically pruning page before update |
Date: | 2024-04-03 20:04:26 |
Message-ID: | CAAKRu_ZZUfCaf8d1Frh7DxsvS43DRSXXjMXnycEPOzmsWp5NXQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 8:33 PM James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 2:46 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 7:18 AM James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 8:21 PM James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > See rebased patch attached.
> > >
> > > I just realized I left a change in during the rebase that wasn't necessary.
> > >
> > > v4 attached.
> >
> > I have noticed that you are performing the opportunistic pruning after
> > we decided that the updated tuple can not fit in the current page and
> > then we are performing the pruning on the new target page. Why don't
> > we first perform the pruning on the existing page of the tuple itself?
> > Or this is already being done before this patch? I could not find
> > such existing pruning so got this question because such pruning can
> > convert many non-hot updates to the HOT update right?
>
> First off I noticed that I accidentally sent a different version of
> the patch I'd originally worked on. Here's the one from the proper
> branch. It's still similar, but I want to make sure the right one is
> being reviewed.
I finally got back around to looking at this. Sorry for the delay.
I don't feel confident enough to say at a high level whether or not it
is a good idea in the general case to try pruning every block
RelationGetBufferForTuple() considers as a target block.
But, I did have a few thoughts on the implementation:
heap_page_prune_opt() checks PageGetHeapFreeSpace() twice. You will
have already done that in RelationGetBufferForTuple(). And you don't
need even need to do it both of those times because you have a lock
(which is why heap_page_prune_opt() does it twice). This all seems a
bit wasteful. And then, you do it again after pruning.
This made me think, vacuum cares how much space heap_page_prune() (now
heap_page_prune_and_freeze()) freed up. Now if we add another caller
who cares how much space pruning freed up, perhaps it is worth
calculating this while pruning and returning it. I know
PageGetHeapFreeSpace() isn't the most expensive function in the world,
but it also seems like a useful, relevant piece of information to
inform the caller of.
You don't have to implement the above, it was just something I was
thinking about.
Looking at the code also made me wonder if it is worth changing
RelationGetBufferForTuple() to call PageGetHeapFreeSpace() before
taking a lock (which won't give a totally accurate result, but that's
probably okay) and then call heap_page_prune_opt() without a lock when
PageGetHeapFreeSpace() says there isn't enough space.
Also do we want to do GetVisibilityMapPins() before calling
heap_page_prune_opt()? I don't quite get why we do that before knowing
if we are going to actually use the target block in the current code.
Anyway, I'm not sure I like just adding a parameter to
heap_page_prune_opt() to indicate it already has an exclusive lock. It
does a bunch of stuff that was always done without a lock and now you
are doing it with an exclusive lock.
- Melanie
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-04-03 20:12:58 | Re: Popcount optimization using AVX512 |
Previous Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2024-04-03 20:03:44 | Re: On disable_cost |