Re: [PERFORM] Very slow (2 tuples/second) sequential scan after bulk insert; speed returns to ~500 tuples/second after commit - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: [PERFORM] Very slow (2 tuples/second) sequential scan after bulk insert; speed returns to ~500 tuples/second after commit
Date
Msg-id 200803170221.m2H2LOp12205@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PERFORM] Very slow (2 tuples/second) sequential scan after bulk insert; speed returns to ~500 tuples/second after commit  ("Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-patches
This has been applied by Tom.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> >> Elsewhere in our codebase where we use arrays that are enlarged as
> >> needed, we keep track of the "allocated" size and the "used" size of the
> >> array separately, and only call repalloc when the array fills up, and
> >> repalloc a larger than necessary array when it does. I chose to just
> >> call repalloc every time instead, as repalloc is smart enough to fall
> >> out quickly if the chunk the allocation was made in is already larger
> >> than the new size. There might be some gain avoiding the repeated
> >> repalloc calls, but I doubt it's worth the code complexity, and calling
> >> repalloc with a larger than necessary size can actually force it to
> >> unnecessarily allocate a new, larger chunk instead of reusing the old
> >> one. Thoughts on that?
> >
> > Seems like a pretty bad idea to me, as the behavior you're counting on
> > only applies to chunks up to 8K or thereabouts.
>
> Oh, you're right. Though I'm sure libc realloc has all kinds of smarts
> as well, it does seem better to not rely too much on that.
>
> > In a situation where
> > you are subcommitting lots of XIDs one at a time, this is likely to have
> > quite awful behavior (or at least, you're at the mercy of the local
> > malloc library as to how bad it is).  I'd go with the same
> > double-it-each-time-needed approach we use elsewhere.
>
> Yep, patch attached. I also changed xactGetCommittedChildren to return
> the original array instead of copying it, as Alvaro suggested.
>
> --
>    Heikki Linnakangas
>    EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com


>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches

--
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://postgres.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Very slow (2 tuples/second) sequential scan after bulk insert; speed returns to ~500 tuples/second after commit
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: updated hash functions for postgresql v1