Horton

Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum

Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2021-07-09T07:16:55Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 2:37 PM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2021-07-08 20:53:32 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2021-07-07 20:46:38 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > > 1. Don't allocate more than 1GB. There was a discussion to eliminate
> > > this limitation by using MemoryContextAllocHuge() but there were
> > > concerns about point 2[1].
> > >
> > > 2. Allocate the whole memory space at once.
> > >
> > > 3. Slow lookup performance (O(logN)).
> > >
> > > I’ve done some experiments in this area and would like to share the
> > > results and discuss ideas.
> >
> > Yea, this is a serious issue.
> >
> >
> > 3) could possibly be addressed to a decent degree without changing the
> > fundamental datastructure too much. There's some sizable and trivial
> > wins by just changing vac_cmp_itemptr() to compare int64s and by using
> > an open coded bsearch().
>
> Just using itemptr_encode() makes array in test #1 go from 8s to 6.5s on my
> machine.
>
> Another thing I just noticed is that you didn't include the build times for the
> datastructures. They are lower than the lookups currently, but it does seem
> like a relevant thing to measure as well. E.g. for #1 I see the following build
> times
>
> array    24.943 ms
> tbm     206.456 ms
> intset   93.575 ms
> vtbm    134.315 ms
> rtbm    145.964 ms
>
> that's a significant range...

Good point. I got similar results when measuring on my machine:

array 57.987 ms
tbm 297.720 ms
intset 113.796 ms
vtbm 165.268 ms
rtbm 199.658 ms

>
> Randomizing the lookup order (using a random shuffle in
> generate_index_tuples()) changes the benchmark results for #1 significantly:
>
>         shuffled time    unshuffled time
> array    6551.726 ms      6478.554 ms
> intset  67590.879 ms     10815.810 ms
> rtbm    17992.487 ms      2518.492 ms
> tbm       364.917 ms       360.128 ms
> vtbm    12227.884 ms      1288.123 ms

I believe that in your test, tbm_reaped() actually always returned
true. That could explain tbm was very fast in both cases. Since
TIDBitmap in the core doesn't support the existence check tbm_reaped()
in bdbench.c always returns true. I added a patch in the repository to
add existence check support to TIDBitmap, although it assumes bitmap
never be lossy.

That being said, I'm surprised that rtbm is slower than array even in
the unshuffled case. I've also measured the shuffle cases and got
different results. To be clear, I used prepare() SQL function to
prepare both virtual dead tuples and index tuples, load them by
attach_dead_tuples() SQL function, and executed bench() SQL function
for each data structure. Here are the results:

         shuffled time       unshuffled time
array  88899.513 ms   12616.521 ms
intset  73476.055 ms   10063.405 ms
rtbm   22264.671 ms    2073.171 ms
tbm    10285.092   ms  1417.312 ms
vtbm   14488.581 ms    1240.666  ms

>
> FWIW, I get an assertion failure when using an assertion build:
>
> #2  0x0000561800ea02e0 in ExceptionalCondition (conditionName=0x7f9115a88e91 "found", errorType=0x7f9115a88d11 "FailedAssertion",
>     fileName=0x7f9115a88e8a "rtbm.c", lineNumber=242) at /home/andres/src/postgresql/src/backend/utils/error/assert.c:69
> #3  0x00007f9115a87645 in rtbm_add_tuples (rtbm=0x561806293280, blkno=0, offnums=0x7fffdccabb00, nitems=10) at rtbm.c:242
> #4  0x00007f9115a8363d in load_rtbm (rtbm=0x561806293280, itemptrs=0x7f908a203050, nitems=10000000) at bdbench.c:618
> #5  0x00007f9115a834b9 in rtbm_attach (lvtt=0x7f9115a8c300 <LVTestSubjects+352>, nitems=10000000, minblk=2139062143, maxblk=2139062143, maxoff=32639)
>     at bdbench.c:587
> #6  0x00007f9115a83837 in attach (lvtt=0x7f9115a8c300 <LVTestSubjects+352>, nitems=10000000, minblk=2139062143, maxblk=2139062143, maxoff=32639)
>     at bdbench.c:658
> #7  0x00007f9115a84190 in attach_dead_tuples (fcinfo=0x56180322d690) at bdbench.c:873
>
> I assume you just inverted the Assert(found) assertion?

Right. Fixed it.

Regards,

-- 
Masahiko Sawada
EDB:  https://www.enterprisedb.com/

Commits

  1. radixtree: Fix SIGSEGV at update of embeddable value to non-embeddable.

  2. Get rid of anonymous struct

  3. Teach radix tree to embed values at runtime

  4. Teach TID store to skip bitmap for small numbers of offsets

  5. Use bump context for TID bitmaps stored by vacuum

  6. Fix alignment of stack variable

  7. Use TidStore for dead tuple TIDs storage during lazy vacuum.

  8. Rethink create and attach APIs of shared TidStore.

  9. Fix inconsistent function prototypes with function definitions.

  10. Fix a calculation in TidStoreCreate().

  11. Fix potential integer handling issue in radixtree.h.

  12. Add TIDStore, to store sets of TIDs (ItemPointerData) efficiently.

  13. Fix link error for test_radixtree module on Windows

  14. Blind attempt to fix ODR violations

  15. Fix incorrect format specifier for int64

  16. Fix redefinition of typedefs

  17. Add template for adaptive radix tree

  18. Fix signedness error in 9f225e992 for gcc

  19. Introduce helper SIMD functions for small byte arrays

  20. Optimize vacuuming of relations with no indexes.

  21. Add bound check before bsearch() for performance

  22. Allocate consecutive blocks during parallel seqscans