Re: row filtering for logical replication
Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>
Commits
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Release cache tuple when no longer needed
- ed0fbc8e5ac9 15.0 landed
-
Add some additional tests for row filters in logical replication.
- ceb57afd3ce1 15.0 landed
-
Fix one of the tests introduced in commit 52e4f0cd47.
- cfb4e209ec15 15.0 landed
-
Allow specifying row filters for logical replication of tables.
- 52e4f0cd472d 15.0 landed
-
Move scanint8() to numutils.c
- cfc7191dfea3 15.0 cited
-
Replace Test::More plans with done_testing
- 549ec201d613 15.0 cited
-
Reduce relcache access in WAL sender streaming logical changes
- 6ce16088bfed 15.0 cited
-
Small cleanups related to PUBLICATION framework code
- c9105dd3660f 15.0 cited
-
Add a view to show the stats of subscription workers.
- 8d74fc96db5f 15.0 cited
-
Allow publishing the tables of schema.
- 5a2832465fd8 15.0 cited
-
Doc: improve documentation of CREATE/ALTER SUBSCRIPTION.
- 1882d6cca161 15.0 cited
-
Add PublicationTable and PublicationRelInfo structs
- 0c6828fa987b 15.0 cited
-
Remove unused argument "txn" in maybe_send_schema().
- 93d573d86571 15.0 cited
-
Add prepare API support for streaming transactions in logical replication.
- 63cf61cdeb7b 15.0 cited
-
Unify PostgresNode's new() and get_new_node() methods
- 201a76183e20 15.0 cited
-
Use l*_node() family of functions where appropriate
- 2b00db4fb0c7 15.0 cited
-
Add support for prepared transactions to built-in logical replication.
- a8fd13cab0ba 15.0 cited
-
Restore the portal-level snapshot after procedure COMMIT/ROLLBACK.
- ef9480509622 11.13 cited
-
Rename a parse node to be more general
- 91d1f2d30210 14.0 landed
-
Remove unused column atttypmod from initial tablesync query
- 4ad31bb2ef25 14.0 landed
-
SEARCH and CYCLE clauses
- 3696a600e229 14.0 cited
Attachments
- workload-a.PNG (image/png)
On Sat, Jan 29, 2022 at 11:31 AM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > > Hi, > > Are there any recent performance evaluations of the overhead of row filters? I > think it'd be good to get some numbers comparing: > > 1) $workload with master > 2) $workload with patch, but no row filters > 3) $workload with patch, row filter matching everything > 4) $workload with patch, row filter matching few rows > > For workload I think it'd be worth testing: > a) bulk COPY/INSERT into one table > b) Many transactions doing small modifications to one table > c) Many transactions targetting many different tables > d) Interspersed DDL + small changes to a table > I have gathered performance data for the workload case (a): HEAD 46743.75 v74 no filters 46929.15 v74 allow 100% 46926.09 v74 allow 75% 40617.74 v74 allow 50% 35744.17 v74 allow 25% 29468.93 v74 allow 0% 22540.58 PSA. This was tested using patch v74 and synchronous pub/sub. There are 1M INSERTS for publications using differing amounts of row filtering (or none). Observations: - There seems insignificant row-filter overheads (e.g. viz no filter and 100% allowed versus HEAD). - The elapsed time decreases linearly as there is less data getting replicated. I will post the results for other workload kinds (b, c, d) when I have them. ------ Kind Regards, Peter Smith. Fujitsu Australia.