Re: track_planning causing performance regression

On 2020/06/29 18:53, Julien Rouhaud wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 11:38 AM Fujii Masao
> <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Your benchmark result seems to suggest that the cause of the problem is
>>>> the contention of per-query spinlock in pgss_store(). Right?
>>>> This lock contention is likely to happen when multiple sessions run
>>>> the same queries.
>>>>
>>>> One idea to reduce that lock contention is to separate per-query spinlock
>>>> into two; one is for planning, and the other is for execution. pgss_store()
>>>> determines which lock to use based on the given "kind" argument.
>>>> To make this idea work, also every pgss counters like shared_blks_hit
>>>> need to be separated into two, i.e., for planning and execution.
>>>
>>> This can probably remove some overhead, but won't it eventually hit
>>> the same issue when multiple connections try to plan the same query,
>>> given the number of different queries and very low execution runtime?
>>
>> Yes. But maybe we can expect that the idea would improve
>> the performance to the near same level as v12?
> 
> A POC patch should be easy to do and see how much it solves this
> problem.  However I'm not able to reproduce the issue, and IMHO unless
> we specifically want to be able to distinguish planner-time counters
> from execution-time counters, I'd prefer to disable track_planning by
> default than going this way, so that users with a sane usage won't
> have to suffer from a memory increase.

Agreed. +1 to change that default to off.

Regards,

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