Re: relfilenode statistics

On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 09:27:38AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 05:30:32AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 04:48:36AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote:
> > > Please find attached a mandatory rebase.
> > > 
> > > In passing, checking if based on the previous discussion (and given that we
> > > don't have the relation OID when writing buffers out) you see another approach
> > > that the one this patch is implementing?
> > 
> > Attached v5, mandatory rebase due to recent changes in the stats area.
> 
> Attached v6, mandatory rebase due to b14e9ce7d5.
> 
> Note that 0001 is the same as the one proposed in [0] and needs to be applied
> here to make the stats machinery working as expected with the relfile added in
> the stats hash key (though it deserves its own dedicated thread as explained in [0]).
> 
> Don't look at 0001 and 0002 as I think we need more design discussion.
> 
> === Sum up the feedback received up-thread
> 
> I re-read this thread and it appears that there is 3 main remarks:
> 
> R1: Andres did propose to add stuff like "n_dead_tup" (see [1]), to provide
> even more benefits.
> 
> R2: Robert mentioned ([2]) that we need to decide between "sometimes I
> don't know the relation OID so I want to use the relfilenumber
> instead, without changing the user experience" and "some
> of these stats actually properly pertain to the relfilenode rather
> than the relation so I want to associate them with the right object
> and that will affect how the user sees things".
> 
> R3: Michael had concerns about adding a new field (the relfile) in the hash key,
> see [3].
> 
> === My thoughts:
> 
> While my initial idea was that the relfilenode stats would deal only with I/O
> activities it also looks like that it would be benficial to add sutff like
> "n_dead_tup".
> 
> Then I think we should go with the "sometimes I don't know the relation OID
> so I want to use the relfilenumber instead, without changing the user experience"
> way.
> 
> Regarding the concern about adding a new field in the hash key, I think we can't
> avoid that as we don't have the relation OID when writing buffers out.
> 
> === Moving forward
> 
> I would go for trying to store everything that is "relation" related into the
> relfilenode stats (that will then include n_dead_tup among other things) and
> try to hide the distinction between relfilenode stats and relation stats from
> the user.
> 
> Thoughts of moving forward that way?
> 
> [0]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Zyb7RW1y9dVfO0UH%40ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal
> [1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20240607033806.6gwgolihss72cj6r%40awork3.anarazel.de
> [2]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoZtwT6h%3DnyuQ1J9GNSrRyhf0fv7Ai6FzO%3DbH0C9Bf6tew%40mail.gmail.com
> [3]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/Zo9j69GhexDpeV4k%40paquier.xyz
> 

+ Andres and Robert as both are quoted in my previous message.

Regards,

-- 
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com