On 2015-06-02 17:01:50 +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> >The actual problem is sorting & fsyncing in a way that deals efficiently
> >with tablespaces, i.e. doesn't write to tablespaces one-by-one.
> >Not impossible, but it requires some thought.
>
> Hmmm... I would have neglected this point in a first approximation,
> but I agree that not interleaving tablespaces could indeed loose some
> performance.
I think it'll be a hard to diagnose performance regression. So we'll
have to fix it. That argument actually was the blocker in previous
attempts...
> >IMO this feature, if done correctly, should result in better performance
> >in 95+% of the workloads
>
> To demonstrate that would require time...
Well, that's part of the contribution process. Obviously you can't test
100% of the problems, but you can work hard with coming up with very
adversarial scenarios and evaluate performance for those.
> >and be enabled by default.
>
> I did not had such an ambition with the submitted patch:-)
I don't think we want yet another tuning knob that's hard to tune
because it's critical for one factor (latency) but bad for another
(throughput); especially when completely unnecessarily.
> >And that'll not be possible without actually writing mostly sequentially.
>
> >It's also not just the sequential writes making this important, it's also
> >that it allows to do the final fsync() of the individual segments as soon
> >as their last buffer has been written out.
>
> Hmmm... I'm not sure this would have a large impact. The writes are
> throttled as much as possible, so fsync will catch plenty other writes
> anyway, if there are some.
That might be the case in a database with a single small table;
i.e. where all the writes go to a single file. But as soon as you have
large tables (i.e. many segments) or multiple tables, a significant part
of the writes issued independently from checkpointing will be outside
the processing of the individual segment.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
