On Mon, 2007-03-12 at 16:21 +0900, ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> > I've implemented buffer recycling, as previously described, patch being
> > posted now to -patches as "scan_recycle_buffers".
> >
> > - for VACUUMs of any size, with the objective of reducing WAL thrashing
> > whilst keeping VACUUM's behaviour of not spoiling the buffer cache (as
> > originally suggested by Itagaki-san, just with a different
> > implementation).
>
> I tested your patch with VACUUM FREEZE. The performance was improved when
> I set scan_recycle_buffers > 32. I used VACUUM FREEZE to increase WAL traffic,
> but this patch should be useful for normal VACUUMs with backgrond jobs!
Thanks.
> N | time | WAL flush(*)
> -----+-------+-----------
> 0 | 58.7s | 0.01%
> 1 | 80.3s | 81.76%
> 8 | 73.4s | 16.73%
> 16 | 64.2s | 9.24%
> 32 | 59.0s | 4.88%
> 64 | 56.7s | 2.63%
> 128 | 55.1s | 1.41%
>
> (*) WAL flush is the ratio of the need of fsync to buffer recycle.
Do you have the same measurement without patch applied? I'd be
interested in the current state also (the N=0 path is modified as well
for VACUUM, in this patch).
> # SET scan_recycle_buffers = 0;
> # UPDATE accounts SET aid=aid WHERE random() < 0.005;
> # CHECKPOINT;
> # SET scan_recycle_buffers = <N>;
> # VACUUM FREEZE accounts;
Very good results, thanks. I'd be interested in the same thing for just
VACUUM and for varying ratios of dirty/clean blocks during vacuum.
> BTW, does the patch change the default usage of buffer in vacuum? From what
> I've seen, scan_recycle_buffers = 1 is the same as before.
That was the intention.
> With the default
> value of scan_recycle_buffers(=0), VACUUM seems to use all of buffers in pool,
> just like existing sequential scans. Is this intended?
Yes, but its not very useful for testing to have done that. I'll do
another version within the hour that sets N=0 (only) back to current
behaviour for VACUUM.
One of the objectives of the patch was to prevent VACUUM from tripping
up other backends. I'm confident that it will improve that situation for
OLTP workloads running regular concurrent VACUUMs, but we will need to
wait a couple of days to get those results in also.
-- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
