Re: custom hash-based COUNT(DISTINCT) aggregate - unexpectedly high memory consumption - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tomáš Janoušek
Subject Re: custom hash-based COUNT(DISTINCT) aggregate - unexpectedly high memory consumption
Date
Msg-id 20131006183645.GA27556@nomi.cz
Whole thread Raw
In response to custom hash-based COUNT(DISTINCT) aggregate - unexpectedly high memory consumption  (Tomas Vondra <tv@fuzzy.cz>)
Responses Re: Re: custom hash-based COUNT(DISTINCT) aggregate - unexpectedly high memory consumption  (Tomas Vondra <tv@fuzzy.cz>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 08:22:54PM +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> I'm on 64-bit architecture and the example works with int32, which means
> the sizes should be about this:
>
>     hash_element_t => 20B
>     hash_bucket_t  => 4B + (20B * items in the bucket [in steps of 5])
>     hash_table_t   => 4B + space for buckets
>
> In the example above, there's ~20k unique values in each group. The
> threshold is 20 items per bucket on average, so that's 1024 buckets, and
> the buckets are almost full.
>
> So for single group, the hash table size is about
>
>    4B + 1024 * (4B + 20 * 20B) = 413700B = ~ 400 kB
>
> There are 4000 groups, so the total estimate is ~1.6GB in total.
>
> However when executed (9.2, 9.3 and HEAD behave exactly the same), the
> query consumes almost ~5GB of RAM (excluding shared buffers).

I think the missing thing is the memory allocator bookkeeping overhead.
You're assuming that hash_element_t.value takes 8B for the pointer and 4B for
the value itself, but using malloc it takes another at least 20 bytes, and
from a quick glance at backend/utils/mmgr/aset.c it seems that palloc is
certainly not without its overhead either.

Also, each additional level of pointers adds execution overhead and increases
the likelihood of cache misses.  I'd suggest a few improvements, if I may:

1. Drop hash_element_t altogether, store length in hash_bucket_t and alloc  hash_bucket_t.items of size nitems * length
bytes. I doubt that storing  the hash values has a benefit worth the storage and code complexity  overhead (you're
storingfixed-size ints, not large blobs that are  expensive to compare and hash). 

2. Consider using a simpler/faster hash function, like FNV[1] or Jenkins[2].  For fun, try not hashing those ints at
alland see how that performs (that,  I think, is what you get from HashSet<int> in Java/C#). 

3. Consider dropping buckets in favor of open addressing (linear probing,  quadratic, whatever).  This avoids another
levelof pointer indirection. 

It's been a few years since I've done stuff this low level, so I won't go into
suggesting a different data structure -- I have honestly no idea what's the
best way to count the number of distinct integers in a list.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fowler_Noll_Vo_hash
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenkins_hash_function

Best regards,
--
Tomáš Janoušek, a.k.a. Liskni_si, http://work.lisk.in/



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Noah Misch
Date:
Subject: Re: pgbench progress report improvements - split 3 v2 - A
Next
From: Kohei KaiGai
Date:
Subject: Re: Triggers on foreign tables