Re: autovac issue with large number of tables

On Wed, Dec 9, 2020 at 12:01 AM Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2020/12/04 12:21, Kasahara Tatsuhito wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 9:09 PM Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 2020/12/03 11:46, Kasahara Tatsuhito wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 7:11 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2020 at 3:33 PM Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 2020/12/02 12:53, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 5:31 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 4:32 PM Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 2020/12/01 16:23, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2020 at 1:48 PM Kasahara Tatsuhito
> >>>>>>>>> <kasahara(dot)tatsuhito(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 8:59 PM Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2020/11/30 10:43, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 29, 2020 at 10:34 PM Kasahara Tatsuhito
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <kasahara(dot)tatsuhito(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Thanks for you comments.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 9:51 PM Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2020/11/27 18:38, Kasahara Tatsuhito wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 1:43 AM Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2020/11/26 10:41, Kasahara Tatsuhito wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 8:46 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 4:18 PM Kasahara Tatsuhito
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <kasahara(dot)tatsuhito(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 2:17 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 7:50 PM Kasahara Tatsuhito
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <kasahara(dot)tatsuhito(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 2:10 AM Kasahara Tatsuhito
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <kasahara(dot)tatsuhito(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wonder if we could have table_recheck_autovac do two probes of the stats
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data. First probe the existing stats data, and if it shows the table to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be already vacuumed, return immediately. If not, *then* force a stats
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> re-read, and check a second time.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does the above mean that the second and subsequent table_recheck_autovac()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be improved to first check using the previous refreshed statistics?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that certainly works.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that's correct, I'll try to create a patch for the PoC
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I still don't know how to reproduce Jim's troubles, but I was able to reproduce
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what was probably a very similar problem.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This problem seems to be more likely to occur in cases where you have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a large number of tables,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> i.e., a large amount of stats, and many small tables need VACUUM at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same time.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So I followed Tom's advice and created a patch for the PoC.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This patch will enable a flag in the table_recheck_autovac function to use
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the existing stats next time if VACUUM (or ANALYZE) has already been done
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by another worker on the check after the stats have been updated.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If the tables continue to require VACUUM after the refresh, then a refresh
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be required instead of using the existing statistics.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I did simple test with HEAD and HEAD + this PoC patch.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The tests were conducted in two cases.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (I changed few configurations. see attached scripts)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. Normal VACUUM case
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - SET autovacuum = off
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - CREATE tables with 100 rows
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - DELETE 90 rows for each tables
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - SET autovacuum = on and restart PostgreSQL
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Measure the time it takes for all tables to be VACUUMed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. Anti wrap round VACUUM case
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - CREATE brank tables
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - SELECT all of these tables (for generate stats)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - SET autovacuum_freeze_max_age to low values and restart PostgreSQL
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Consumes a lot of XIDs by using txid_curent()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Measure the time it takes for all tables to be VACUUMed
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For each test case, the following results were obtained by changing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers parameters to 1, 2, 3(def) 5 and 10.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also changing num of tables to 1000, 5000, 10000 and 20000.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Due to the poor VM environment (2 VCPU/4 GB), the results are a little unstable,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I think it's enough to ask for a trend.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ===========================================================================
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1.Normal VACUUM case]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tables:1000
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 1: (HEAD) 20 sec VS (with patch) 20 sec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 2: (HEAD) 18 sec VS (with patch) 16 sec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 3: (HEAD) 18 sec VS (with patch) 16 sec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 5: (HEAD) 19 sec VS (with patch) 17 sec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 10: (HEAD) 19 sec VS (with patch) 17 sec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tables:5000
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 1: (HEAD) 77 sec VS (with patch) 78 sec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 2: (HEAD) 61 sec VS (with patch) 43 sec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 3: (HEAD) 38 sec VS (with patch) 38 sec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 5: (HEAD) 45 sec VS (with patch) 37 sec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 10: (HEAD) 43 sec VS (with patch) 35 sec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tables:10000
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 1: (HEAD) 152 sec VS (with patch) 153 sec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 2: (HEAD) 119 sec VS (with patch) 98 sec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 3: (HEAD) 87 sec VS (with patch) 78 sec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 5: (HEAD) 100 sec VS (with patch) 66 sec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 10: (HEAD) 97 sec VS (with patch) 56 sec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tables:20000
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 1: (HEAD) 338 sec VS (with patch) 339 sec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 2: (HEAD) 231 sec VS (with patch) 229 sec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 3: (HEAD) 220 sec VS (with patch) 191 sec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 5: (HEAD) 234 sec VS (with patch) 147 sec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 10: (HEAD) 320 sec VS (with patch) 113 sec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2.Anti wrap round VACUUM case]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tables:1000
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 1: (HEAD) 19 sec VS (with patch) 18 sec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 2: (HEAD) 14 sec VS (with patch) 15 sec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 3: (HEAD) 14 sec VS (with patch) 14 sec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 5: (HEAD) 14 sec VS (with patch) 16 sec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 10: (HEAD) 16 sec VS (with patch) 14 sec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tables:5000
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 1: (HEAD) 69 sec VS (with patch) 69 sec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 2: (HEAD) 66 sec VS (with patch) 47 sec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 3: (HEAD) 59 sec VS (with patch) 37 sec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 5: (HEAD) 39 sec VS (with patch) 28 sec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 10: (HEAD) 39 sec VS (with patch) 29 sec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tables:10000
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 1: (HEAD) 139 sec VS (with patch) 138 sec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 2: (HEAD) 130 sec VS (with patch) 86 sec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 3: (HEAD) 120 sec VS (with patch) 68 sec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 5: (HEAD) 96 sec VS (with patch) 41 sec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 10: (HEAD) 90 sec VS (with patch) 39 sec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tables:20000
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 1: (HEAD) 313 sec VS (with patch) 331 sec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 2: (HEAD) 209 sec VS (with patch) 201 sec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 3: (HEAD) 227 sec VS (with patch) 141 sec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 5: (HEAD) 236 sec VS (with patch) 88 sec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 10: (HEAD) 309 sec VS (with patch) 74 sec
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ===========================================================================
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The cases without patch, the scalability of the worker has decreased
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as the number of tables has increased.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, the more workers there are, the longer it takes to complete
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VACUUM to all tables.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The cases with patch, it shows good scalability with respect to the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> number of workers.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems a good performance improvement even without the patch of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shared memory based stats collector.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds great!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that perf top results showed that hash_search_with_hash_value,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hash_seq_search and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pgstat_read_statsfiles are dominant during VACUUM in all patterns,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with or without the patch.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, there is still a need to find ways to optimize the reading
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of large amounts of stats.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, this patch is effective in its own right, and since there are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only a few parts to modify,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think it should be able to be applied to current (preferably
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pre-v13) PostgreSQL.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + /* We might be better to refresh stats */
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + use_existing_stats = false;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + else
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - heap_freetuple(classTup);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + heap_freetuple(classTup);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + /* The relid has already vacuumed, so we might be better to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> use exiting stats */
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + use_existing_stats = true;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + }
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> With that patch, the autovacuum process refreshes the stats in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> next check if it finds out that the table still needs to be vacuumed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I guess it's not necessarily true because the next table might be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacuumed already. So I think we might want to always use the existing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the first check. What do you think?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your comment.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we assume the case where some workers vacuum on large tables
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a single worker vacuum on small tables, the processing
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance of the single worker will be slightly lower if the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing statistics are checked every time.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, at first I tried to check the existing stats every time,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but the performance was slightly worse in cases with a small number of workers.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have this benchmark result?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Checking the existing stats is lightweight , but at high frequency,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it affects processing performance.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, at after refresh statistics, determine whether autovac
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should use the existing statistics.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, since the test you used uses a lot of small tables, if there are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a few workers, checking the existing stats is unlikely to return true
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (no need to vacuum). So the cost of existing stats check ends up being
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overhead. Not sure how slow always checking the existing stats was,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but given that the shared memory based stats collector patch could
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improve the performance of refreshing stats, it might be better not to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check the existing stats frequently like the patch does. Anyway, I
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think it’s better to evaluate the performance improvement with other
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases too.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, I would like to see how much the performance changes in other cases.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In addition, if the shared-based-stats patch is applied, we won't need to reload
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a huge stats file, so we will just have to check the stats on
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shared-mem every time.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps the logic of table_recheck_autovac could be simpler.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, I found some typos in comments, so attache a fixed version.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The patch adds some duplicated codes into table_recheck_autovac().
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's better to make the common function performing them and make
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table_recheck_autovac() call that common function, to simplify the code.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your comment.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hmm.. I've cut out the duplicate part.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Attach the patch.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you confirm that it fits your expecting?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, thanks for updataing the patch! Here are another review comments.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> + shared = pgstat_fetch_stat_dbentry(InvalidOid);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> + dbentry = pgstat_fetch_stat_dbentry(MyDatabaseId);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When using the existing stats, ISTM that these are not necessary and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> we can reuse "shared" and "dbentry" obtained before. Right?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, but unless autovac_refresh_stats() is called, these functions
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> read the information from the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> local hash table without re-read the stats file, so the process is very light.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore, I think, it is better to keep the current logic to keep the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> code simple.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> + /* We might be better to refresh stats */
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> + use_existing_stats = false;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that we should add more comments about why it's better to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> refresh the stats in this case.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> + /* The relid has already vacuumed, so we might be better to use existing stats */
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> + use_existing_stats = true;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think that we should add more comments about why it's better to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> reuse the stats in this case.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I added comments.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Attache the patch.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thank you for updating the patch. Here are some small comments on the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> latest (v4) patch.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> + * So if the last time we checked a table that was already vacuumed after
> >>>>>>>>>>>> + * refres stats, check the current statistics before refreshing it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> + */
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> s/refres/refresh/
> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks! fixed.
> >>>>>>>>>> Attached the patch.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> -----
> >>>>>>>>>>>> +/* Counter to determine if statistics should be refreshed */
> >>>>>>>>>>>> +static bool use_existing_stats = false;
> >>>>>>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I think 'use_existing_stats' can be declared within table_recheck_autovac().
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> -----
> >>>>>>>>>>>> While testing the performance, I realized that the statistics are
> >>>>>>>>>>>> reset every time vacuumed one table, leading to re-reading the stats
> >>>>>>>>>>>> file even if 'use_existing_stats' is true. Please refer that vacuum()
> >>>>>>>>>>>> eventually calls AtEOXact_PgStat() which calls to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> pgstat_clear_snapshot().
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Good catch!
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I believe that's why the performance of the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> method of always checking the existing stats wasn’t good as expected.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> So if we save the statistics somewhere and use it for rechecking, the
> >>>>>>>>>>>> results of the performance benchmark will differ between these two
> >>>>>>>>>>>> methods.
> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for you checks.
> >>>>>>>>>> But, if a worker did vacuum(), that means this worker had determined
> >>>>>>>>>> need vacuum in the
> >>>>>>>>>> table_recheck_autovac(). So, use_existing_stats set to false, and next
> >>>>>>>>>> time, refresh stats.
> >>>>>>>>>> Therefore I think the current patch is fine, as we want to avoid
> >>>>>>>>>> unnecessary refreshing of
> >>>>>>>>>> statistics before the actual vacuum(), right?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Yes, you're right.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> When I benchmarked the performance of the method of always checking
> >>>>>>>>> existing stats I edited your patch so that it sets use_existing_stats
> >>>>>>>>> = true even if the second check is false (i.g., vacuum is needed).
> >>>>>>>>> And the result I got was worse than expected especially in the case of
> >>>>>>>>> a few autovacuum workers. But it doesn't evaluate the performance of
> >>>>>>>>> that method rightly as the stats snapshot is cleared every time
> >>>>>>>>> vacuum. Given you had similar results, I guess you used a similar way
> >>>>>>>>> when evaluating it, is it right? If so, it’s better to fix this issue
> >>>>>>>>> and see how the performance benchmark results will differ.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> For example, the results of the test case with 10000 tables and 1
> >>>>>>>>> autovacuum worker I reported before was:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 10000 tables:
> >>>>>>>>> autovac_workers 1 : 158s,157s, 290s
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> But after fixing that issue in the third method (always checking the
> >>>>>>>>> existing stats), the results are:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Could you tell me how you fixed that issue? You copied the stats to
> >>>>>>>> somewhere as you suggested or skipped pgstat_clear_snapshot() as
> >>>>>>>> I suggested?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I used the way you suggested in this quick test; skipped
> >>>>>>> pgstat_clear_snapshot().
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Kasahara-san seems not to like the latter idea because it might
> >>>>>>>> cause bad side effect. So we should use the former idea?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Not sure. I'm also concerned about the side effect but I've not checked yet.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Since probably there is no big difference between the two ways in
> >>>>>>> terms of performance I'm going to see how the performance benchmark
> >>>>>>> result will change first.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I've tested performance improvement again. From the left the execution
> >>>>>> time of the current HEAD, Kasahara-san's patch, the method of always
> >>>>>> checking the existing stats (using approach suggested by Fujii-san),
> >>>>>> in seconds.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1000 tables:
> >>>>>> autovac_workers 1 : 13s, 13s, 13s
> >>>>>> autovac_workers 2 : 6s, 4s, 4s
> >>>>>> autovac_workers 3 : 3s, 4s, 3s
> >>>>>> autovac_workers 5 : 3s, 3s, 2s
> >>>>>> autovac_workers 10: 2s, 3s, 2s
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 5000 tables:
> >>>>>> autovac_workers 1 : 71s, 71s, 72s
> >>>>>> autovac_workers 2 : 37s, 32s, 32s
> >>>>>> autovac_workers 3 : 29s, 26s, 26s
> >>>>>> autovac_workers 5 : 20s, 19s, 18s
> >>>>>> autovac_workers 10: 13s, 8s, 8s
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 10000 tables:
> >>>>>> autovac_workers 1 : 158s,157s, 159s
> >>>>>> autovac_workers 2 : 80s, 53s, 78s
> >>>>>> autovac_workers 3 : 75s, 67s, 67s
> >>>>>> autovac_workers 5 : 61s, 42s, 42s
> >>>>>> autovac_workers 10: 69s, 26s, 25s
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 20000 tables:
> >>>>>> autovac_workers 1 : 379s, 380s, 389s
> >>>>>> autovac_workers 2 : 236s, 232s, 233s
> >>>>>> autovac_workers 3 : 222s, 181s, 182s
> >>>>>> autovac_workers 5 : 212s, 132s, 139s
> >>>>>> autovac_workers 10: 317s, 91s, 89s
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I don't see a big difference between Kasahara-san's patch and the
> >>>>>> method of always checking the existing stats.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks for doing the benchmark!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This benchmark result makes me think that we don't need to tweak
> >>>>> AtEOXact_PgStat() and can use Kasahara-san approach.
> >>>>> That's good news :)
> >>>>
> >>>> Yeah, given that all autovaucum workers have the list of tables to
> >>>> vacuum in the same order in most cases, the assumption in
> >>>> Kasahara-san’s patch that if a worker needs to vacuum a table it’s
> >>>> unlikely that it will be able to skip the next table using the current
> >>>> snapshot of stats makes sense to me.
> >>>>
> >>>> One small comment on v6 patch:
> >>>>
> >>>> + /* When we decide to do vacuum or analyze, the existing stats cannot
> >>>> + * be reused in the next cycle because it's cleared at the end of vacuum
> >>>> + * or analyze (by AtEOXact_PgStat()).
> >>>> + */
> >>>> + use_existing_stats = false;
> >>>>
> >>>> I think the comment should start on the second line (i.g., \n is
> >>>> needed after /*).
> >>> Oops, thanks.
> >>> Fixed.
> >>
> >> Thanks for updating the patch!
> >>
> >> I applied the following cosmetic changes to the patch.
> >> Attached is the updated version of the patch.
> >> Coud you review this version?
> > Thanks for tweaking the patch.
> >
> >> - Ran pgindent to fix some warnings that "git diff --check"
> >> reported on the patch.
> >> - Made the order of arguments consistent between
> >> recheck_relation_needs_vacanalyze and relation_needs_vacanalyze.
> >> - Renamed the variable use_existing_stats to reuse_stats for simplicity.
> >> - Added more comments.
> > I think it's no problem.
> > The patch passed makecheck, and I benchmarked "Anti wrap round VACUUM
> > case" (only 20000 tables) just in case.
> >
> > From the left the execution time of the current HEAD, v8 patch.
> > tables 20000:
> > autovac workers 1: 319sec, 315sec
> > autovac workers 2: 301sec, 190sec
> > autovac workers 3: 270sec, 133sec
> > autovac workers 5: 211sec, 86sec
> > autovac workers 10: 376sec, 68sec
> >
> > It's as expected.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> >> Barring any objection, I'm thinking to commit this version.
> > +1
>
> Pushed.
Thanks !

>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Fujii Masao
> Advanced Computing Technology Center
> Research and Development Headquarters
> NTT DATA CORPORATION

--
Tatsuhito Kasahara
kasahara.tatsuhito _at_ gmail.com