Re: WIP: Avoid creation of the free space map for small tables
От | Mithun Cy |
---|---|
Тема | Re: WIP: Avoid creation of the free space map for small tables |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAD__Ouj8ETKajtQC7uowSY--EUenygTPNfJU7Njbhdy9=DQf2Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: WIP: Avoid creation of the free space map for small tables (John Naylor <jcnaylor@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Thanks, On Sun, Dec 30, 2018 at 3:49 AM John Naylor <jcnaylor@gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/29/18, Mithun Cy <mithun.cy@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > Results are execution time(unit ms) taken by copy statement when number of > > records equal to exact number which fit HEAP_FSM_CREATION_THRESHOLD = 4 > > pages. For fill factor 20 it is till tid (3, 43) and for scale factor 70 > > till tid (3, 157). Result is taken as a median of 10 runs. > > > So 2-3% consistent regression, And on every run I can see for patch v11 > > execution time is slightly more than base. > > Thanks for testing! > > > I also tried to insert more > > records till 8 pages and same regression is observed! So I guess even > > HEAP_FSM_CREATION_THRESHOLD = 4 is not perfect! > > That's curious, because once the table exceeds the threshold, it would > be allowed to update the FSM, and in the process write 3 pages that it > didn't have to in the 4 page test. The master branch has the FSM > already, so I would expect the 8 page case to regress more. I tested with configuration HEAP_FSM_CREATION_THRESHOLD = 4 and just tried to insert till 8 blocks to see if regression is carried on with further inserts. > What I can do later is provide a supplementary patch to go on top of > mine that only checks the last block. If that improves performance, > I'll alter my patch to only check every other page. Running callgrind for same test shows below stats Before patch ========== Number of calls function_name 2000 heap_multi_insert 2000 RelationGetBufferForTuple 3500 ReadBufferBI After Patch ========= Number of calls function_name 2000 heap_multi_insert 2000 RelationGetBufferForTuple 5000 ReadBufferBI I guess Increase in ReadBufferBI() calls might be the reason which is causing regression. Sorry I have not investigated it. I will check same with your next patch! -- Thanks and Regards Mithun Chicklore Yogendra EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: