Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum
Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
Attachments
- memory.py (text/x-python-script)
On Fri, Dec 23, 2022 at 4:33 PM John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2022 at 10:00 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote: > > > If the value is a power of 2, it seems to work perfectly fine. But for > > example if it's 700MB, the total memory exceeds the limit: > > > > 2*(1+2+4+8+16+32+64+128) = 510MB (72.8% of 700MB) -> keep going > > 510 + 256 = 766MB -> stop but it exceeds the limit. > > > > In a more bigger case, if it's 11000MB, > > > > 2*(1+2+...+2048) = 8190MB (74.4%) > > 8190 + 4096 = 12286MB > > > > That being said, I don't think they are not common cases. So the 75% > > threshold seems to work fine in most cases. > > Thinking some more, I agree this doesn't have large practical risk, but thinking from the point of view of the community, being loose with memory limits by up to 10% is not a good precedent. Agreed. > Perhaps we can be clever and use 75% when the limit is a power of two and 50% otherwise. I'm skeptical of trying to be clever, and I just thought of an additional concern: We're assuming behavior of the growth in size of new DSA segments, which could possibly change. Given how allocators are typically coded, though, it seems safe to assume that they'll at most double in size. Sounds good to me. I've written a simple script to simulate the DSA memory usage and the limit. The 75% limit works fine for a power of two cases, and we can use the 60% limit for other cases (it seems we can use up to about 66% but used 60% for safety). It would be best if we can mathematically prove it but I could prove only the power of two cases. But the script practically shows the 60% threshold would work for these cases. Regards -- Masahiko Sawada Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
Commits
-
radixtree: Fix SIGSEGV at update of embeddable value to non-embeddable.
- bb7f195ff788 17.0 landed
-
Get rid of anonymous struct
- bf183f168c44 17.0 landed
-
Teach radix tree to embed values at runtime
- 0fe5f64367bc 17.0 landed
-
Teach TID store to skip bitmap for small numbers of offsets
- f35bd9bf359d 17.0 landed
-
Use bump context for TID bitmaps stored by vacuum
- 8a1b31e6e596 17.0 landed
-
Fix alignment of stack variable
- 0ea51bac3802 17.0 landed
-
Use TidStore for dead tuple TIDs storage during lazy vacuum.
- 667e65aac354 17.0 landed
-
Rethink create and attach APIs of shared TidStore.
- 2d8f56dabbfd 17.0 landed
-
Fix inconsistent function prototypes with function definitions.
- a0e22ef9114b 17.0 landed
-
Fix a calculation in TidStoreCreate().
- 4edb37e322a6 17.0 landed
-
Fix potential integer handling issue in radixtree.h.
- 80d5d4937c16 17.0 landed
-
Add TIDStore, to store sets of TIDs (ItemPointerData) efficiently.
- 30e144287a72 17.0 landed
-
Fix link error for test_radixtree module on Windows
- ab6ae6260372 17.0 landed
- 9552e3ace317 17.0 landed
-
Blind attempt to fix ODR violations
- 1f1d73a8b83f 17.0 landed
-
Fix incorrect format specifier for int64
- e444ebcb85c0 17.0 landed
-
Fix redefinition of typedefs
- ac234e6377dd 17.0 landed
-
Add template for adaptive radix tree
- ee1b30f128d8 17.0 landed
-
Fix signedness error in 9f225e992 for gcc
- de7c6fe8347a 17.0 landed
-
Introduce helper SIMD functions for small byte arrays
- 9f225e992bed 17.0 landed
-
Optimize vacuuming of relations with no indexes.
- c120550edb86 17.0 cited
-
Add bound check before bsearch() for performance
- bbaf315309ed 14.0 cited
-
Allocate consecutive blocks during parallel seqscans
- 56788d2156fc 14.0 cited