Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of largein-progress transactions
От | Tomas Vondra |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of largein-progress transactions |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20190926212455.p6lp3q3lg7jske57@development обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of largein-progress transactions (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 04:36:20PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >On 2019-Sep-26, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > >> How certain are you about the approach to measure memory used by a >> reorderbuffer transaction ... does it not cause a measurable performance >> drop? I wonder if it would make more sense to use a separate contexts >> per transaction and use context-level accounting (per the patch Jeff >> Davis posted elsewhere for hash joins ... though I see now that that >> only works fot aset.c, not other memcxt implementations), or something >> like that. > >Oh, I just noticed that that patch was posted separately in its own >thread, and that that improved version does include support for other >memory context implementations. Excellent. > Unfortunately, that won't fly, for two simple reasons: 1) The memory accounting patch is known to perform poorly with many child contexts - this was why array_agg/string_agg were problematic, before we rewrote them not to create memory context for each group. It could be done differently (eager accounting) but then the overhead for regular/common cases (with just a couple of contexts) is higher. So that seems like a much inferior option. 2) We can't actually have a single context per transaction. Some parts (REORDER_BUFFER_CHANGE_INTERNAL_TUPLECID) of a transaction are not evicted, so we'd have to keep them in a separate context. It'd also mean higher allocation overhead, because now we can reuse chunks cross-transaction. So one transaction commits or gets serialized, and we reuse the chunks for something else. With per-transaction contexts we'd lose some of this benefit - we could only reuse chunks within a transaction (i.e. large transactions that get spilled to disk) but not across commits. I don't have any numbers, of course, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was significant e.g. for small transactions that don't get spilled. And creating/destroying the contexts is not free either, I think. regards -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: