Re: Performance degradation of REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW
Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>
From: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>,
Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>,
Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>,
PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>,
Anastasia Lubennikova <a.lubennikova@postgrespro.ru>,
Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>, Paul Guo <guopa@vmware.com>
Date: 2021-04-26T21:59:17Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 4/26/21 9:27 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2021-04-26 15:31:02 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote: >> I'm not sure what to do about this :-( I don't have any ideas about how to >> eliminate this overhead, so the only option I see is reverting the changes >> in heap_insert. Unfortunately, that'd mean inserts into TOAST tables won't >> be frozen ... > > ISTM that the fundamental issue here is not that we acquire pins that we > shouldn't, but that we do so at a much higher frequency than needed. > > It's probably too invasive for 14, but I think it might be worth exploring > passing down a BulkInsertState in nodeModifyTable.c's table_tuple_insert() iff > the input will be more than one row. > > And then add the vm buffer of the target page to BulkInsertState, so that > hio.c can avoid re-pinning the buffer. > Yeah. The question still is what to do about 14, though. Shall we leave the code as it is now, or should we change it somehow? It seem a bit unfortunate that a COPY FREEZE optimization should negatively influence other (more) common use cases, so I guess we can't just keep the current code ... regards -- Tomas Vondra EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Commits
-
Fix pg_visibility regression failure with CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS
- d1f0aa769691 14.0 landed
-
Revert most of 39b66a91bd
- 8e03eb92e9ad 14.0 landed
-
Fix COPY FREEZE with CLOBBER_CACHE_ALWAYS
- 39b66a91bdeb 14.0 cited