Re: Performance degradation on concurrent COPY into a single relation in PG16.
| От | Andres Freund |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Performance degradation on concurrent COPY into a single relation in PG16. |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 20230812200504.li5vomg36j2tretx@awork3.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Performance degradation on concurrent COPY into a single relation in PG16. (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Performance degradation on concurrent COPY into a single relation in PG16.
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On 2023-08-08 12:45:05 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > > I think there could be a quite simple fix: Track by how much we've extended > > the relation previously in the same bistate. If we already extended by many > > blocks, it's very likey that we'll do so further. > > > > A simple prototype patch attached. The results for me are promising. I copied > > a smaller file [1], to have more accurate throughput results at shorter runs > > (15s). > > Thank you for the patch! Attached is a mildly updated version of that patch. No functional changes, just polished comments and added a commit message. > > Any chance you could your benchmark? I don't see as much of a regression vs 16 > > as you... > > Sure. The results are promising for me too: > > nclients = 1, execution time = 13.743 > nclients = 2, execution time = 7.552 > nclients = 4, execution time = 4.758 > nclients = 8, execution time = 3.035 > nclients = 16, execution time = 2.172 > nclients = 32, execution time = 1.959 > nclients = 64, execution time = 1.819 > nclients = 128, execution time = 1.583 > nclients = 256, execution time = 1.631 Nice. We are consistently better than both 15 and "post integer parsing 16". I'm really a bit baffled at myself for not using this approach from the get go. This also would make it much more beneficial to use a BulkInsertState in nodeModifyTable.c, even without converting to table_multi_insert(). I was tempted to optimize RelationAddBlocks() a bit, by not calling RelationExtensionLockWaiterCount() if we are already extending by MAX_BUFFERS_TO_EXTEND_BY. Before this patch, it was pretty much impossible to reach that case, because of the MAX_BUFFERED_* limits in copyfrom.c, but now it's more common. But that probably ought to be done only HEAD, not 16. A related oddity: RelationExtensionLockWaiterCount()->LockWaiterCount() uses an exclusive lock on the lock partition - which seems not at all necessary? Unless somebody sees a reason not to, I'm planning to push this? Greetings, Andres Freund
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: