Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CANP8+j+q4+ZP0JExgvDRPBpW6cDjb15nvjBR3iWmyoHH--3dCg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 17 November 2015 at 11:27, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
--
Attached patch group_update_clog_v1.patchimplements this idea.I don't think we should be doing this only for transactions that don't have subtransactions.The reason for not doing this optimization for subtransactions is that weneed to advertise the information that Group leader needs for updatingthe transaction status and if we want to do it for sub transactions, thenall the subtransaction id's needs to be advertised. Now here the trickypart is that number of subtransactions for which the status needs tobe updated is dynamic, so reserving memory for it would be difficult.However, we can reserve some space in Proc like we do for XidCache(cache of sub transaction ids) and then use that to advertise that manyXid's at-a-time or just allow this optimization if number of subtransactionsis lesser than or equal to the size of this new XidCache. I am not sureif it is good idea to use the existing XidCache for this purpose in whichcase we need to have a separate space in PGProc for this purpose. Idon't see allocating space for 64 or so subxid's as a problem, howeverdoing it for bigger number could be cause of concern.We are trying to speed up real cases, not just benchmarks.So +1 for the concept, patch is going in right direction though lets do the full press-up.I have mentioned above the reason for not doing it for sub transactions, ifyou think it is viable to reserve space in shared memory for this purpose, thenI can include the optimization for subtransactions as well.
The number of subxids is unbounded, so as you say, reserving shmem isn't viable.
I'm interested in real world cases, so allocating 65 xids per process isn't needed, but we can say is that the optimization shouldn't break down abruptly in the presence of a small/reasonable number of subtransactions.
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: