Re: [PoC] Improve dead tuple storage for lazy vacuum
John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>
On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 9:32 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 8:27 PM John Naylor > <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > > > I wrote: > > > > > > > Since the block-level measurement is likely overestimating quite a bit, I propose to simply reverse the order of the actions here, effectively reporting progress for the *last page* and not the current one: First update progress with the current memory usage, then add tids for this page. If this allocated a new block, only a small bit of that will be written to. If this block pushes it over the limit, we will detect that up at the top of the loop. It's kind of like our earlier attempts at a "fudge factor", but simpler and less brittle. And, as far as OS pages we have actually written to, I think it'll effectively respect the memory limit, at least in the local mem case. And the numbers will make sense. > > I still like my idea at the top of the page -- at least for vacuum and m_w_m. It's still not completely clear if it's right but I've got nothing better. It also ignores the work_mem issue, but I've given up anticipating all future cases at the moment. > IIUC you suggested measuring memory usage by tracking how much memory > chunks are allocated within a block. If your idea at the top of the > page follows this method, it still doesn't deal with the point Andres > mentioned. Right, but that idea was orthogonal to how we measure memory use, and in fact mentions blocks specifically. The re-ordering was just to make sure that progress reporting didn't show current-use > max-use. However, the big question remains DSA, since a new segment can be as large as the entire previous set of allocations. It seems it just wasn't designed for things where memory growth is unpredictable. I'm starting to wonder if we need to give DSA a bit more info at the start. Imagine a "soft" limit given to the DSA area when it is initialized. If the total segment usage exceeds this, it stops doubling and instead new segments get smaller. Modifying an example we used for the fudge-factor idea some time ago: m_w_m = 1GB, so calculate the soft limit to be 512MB and pass it to the DSA area. 2*(1+2+4+8+16+32+64+128) + 256 = 766MB (74.8% of 1GB) -> hit soft limit, so "stairstep down" the new segment sizes: 766 + 2*(128) + 64 = 1086MB -> stop That's just an undeveloped idea, however, so likely v17 development, even assuming it's not a bad idea (could be). And sadly, unless we find some other, simpler answer soon for tracking and limiting shared memory, the tid store is looking like v17 material. -- John Naylor EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.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