Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum

On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 8:07 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 3:25 PM John Naylor <johncnaylorls(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2024 at 12:20 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> > - * remaining LP_DEAD line pointers on the page in the dead_items
> > - * array. These dead items include those pruned by lazy_scan_prune()
> > - * as well we line pointers previously marked LP_DEAD.
> > + * remaining LP_DEAD line pointers on the page in the dead_items.
> > + * These dead items include those pruned by lazy_scan_prune() as well
> > + * we line pointers previously marked LP_DEAD.
> >
> > Here maybe "into dead_items".

- * remaining LP_DEAD line pointers on the page in the dead_items.
+ * remaining LP_DEAD line pointers on the page into the dead_items.

Let me explain. It used to be "in the dead_items array." It is not an
array anymore, so it was changed to "in the dead_items". dead_items is
a variable name, and names don't take "the". "into dead_items" seems
most natural to me, but there are other possible phrasings.

> > > > Did you try it with 1MB m_w_m?
> > >
> > > I've incorporated the above comments and test results look good to me.
> >
> > Could you be more specific about what the test was?
> > Does it work with 1MB m_w_m?
>
> If m_w_m is 1MB, both the initial and maximum segment sizes are 256kB.
>
> FYI other test cases I tested were:
>
> * m_w_m = 2199023254528 (maximum value)
> initial: 1MB
> max: 128GB
>
> * m_w_m = 64MB (default)
> initial: 1MB
> max: 8MB

If the test was a vacuum, how big a table was needed to hit 128GB?

> > The existing comment slipped past my radar, but max_bytes is not a
> > limit, it's a hint. Come to think of it, it never was a limit in the
> > normal sense, but in earlier patches it was the criteria for reporting
> > "I'm full" when asked.
>
> Updated the comment.

+ * max_bytes is not a limit; it's used to choose the memory block sizes of
+ * a memory context for TID storage in order for the total memory consumption
+ * not to be overshot a lot. The caller can use the max_bytes as the criteria
+ * for reporting whether it's full or not.

This is good information. I suggest this edit:

"max_bytes" is not an internally-enforced limit; it is used only as a
hint to cap the memory block size of the memory context for TID
storage. This reduces space wastage due to over-allocation. If the
caller wants to monitor memory usage, it must compare its limit with
the value reported by TidStoreMemoryUsage().

Other comments:

v79-0002 looks good to me.

v79-0003:

"With this commit, when creating a shared TidStore, a dedicated DSA
area is created for TID storage instead of using the provided DSA
area."

This is very subtle, but "the provided..." implies there still is one.
-> "a provided..."

+ * Similar to TidStoreCreateLocal() but create a shared TidStore on a
+ * DSA area. The TID storage will live in the DSA area, and a memory
+ * context rt_context will have only meta data of the radix tree.

-> "the memory context"

I think you can go ahead and commit 0002 and 0003/4.

v79-0005:

- bypass = (vacrel->lpdead_item_pages < threshold &&
- vacrel->lpdead_items < MAXDEADITEMS(32L * 1024L * 1024L));
+ bypass = (vacrel->lpdead_item_pages < threshold) &&
+ TidStoreMemoryUsage(vacrel->dead_items) < (32L * 1024L * 1024L);

The parentheses look strange, and the first line shouldn't change
without a good reason.

- /* Set dead_items space */
- dead_items = (VacDeadItems *) shm_toc_lookup(toc,
- PARALLEL_VACUUM_KEY_DEAD_ITEMS,
- false);
+ /* Set dead items */
+ dead_items = TidStoreAttach(shared->dead_items_dsa_handle,
+ shared->dead_items_handle);

I feel ambivalent about this comment change. The original is not very
descriptive to begin with. If we need to change at all, maybe "find
dead_items in shared memory"?

v79-0005: As I said earlier, Dilip Kumar reviewed an earlier version.

v79-0006:

vac_work_mem should also go back to being an int.