Horton

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

John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
Cc: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>, Yura Sokolov <y.sokolov@postgrespro.ru>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2022-10-06T09:30:52Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 2:53 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 6:40 PM John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>
wrote:
> >
> > This wasn't the focus of your current email, but while experimenting
with v6 I had another thought about local allocation: If we use the default
slab block size of 8192 bytes, then only 3 chunks of size 2088 can fit,
right? If so, since aset and DSA also waste at least a few hundred bytes,
we could store a useless 256-byte slot array within node256. That way,
node128 and node256 share the same start of pointers/values array, so there
would be one less branch for getting that address. In v6,
rt_node_get_values and rt_node_get_children are not inlined (asde: gcc uses
a jump table for 5 kinds but not for 4), but possibly should be, and the
smaller the better.
>
> It would be good for performance but I'm a bit concerned that it's
> highly optimized to the design of aset and DSA. Since size 2088 will
> be currently classed as 2616 in DSA, DSA wastes 528 bytes. However, if
> we introduce a new class of 2304 (=2048 + 256) bytes we cannot store a
> useless 256-byte and the assumption will be broken.

A new DSA class is hypothetical. A better argument against my idea is that
SLAB_DEFAULT_BLOCK_SIZE is arbitrary. FWIW, I looked at the prototype just
now and the slab block sizes are:

Max(pg_nextpower2_32((MAXALIGN(inner_class_info[i].size) + 16) * 32), 1024)

...which would be 128kB for nodemax. I'm curious about the difference.

> > One concern is, handling both local and dsa cases in the same code
requires more (predictable) branches and reduces code density. That might
be a reason in favor of templating to handle each case in its own
translation unit.
>
> Right. We also need to support locking for shared radix tree, which
> would require more branches.

Hmm, now it seems we'll likely want to template local vs. shared as a later
step...

--
John Naylor
EDB: http://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