Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning optimization for large amountof partitions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Aleksander Alekseev |
---|---|
Subject | Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning optimization for large amountof partitions |
Date | |
Msg-id | 20170306152216.GA7792@e733.localdomain Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning optimization for large amountof partitions (Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8@lab.ntt.co.jp>) |
Responses |
Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning optimization for large amountof partitions
Re: [HACKERS] Declarative partitioning optimization for large amountof partitions |
List | pgsql-hackers |
Hello. OK, here is a patch. Benchmark, before: ``` number of transactions actually processed: 1823 latency average = 1153.495 ms latency stddev = 154.366 ms tps = 6.061104 (including connections establishing) tps = 6.061211 (excluding connections establishing) ``` Benchmark, after: ``` number of transactions actually processed: 2462 latency average = 853.862 ms latency stddev = 112.270 ms tps = 8.191861 (including connections establishing) tps = 8.192028 (excluding connections establishing) ``` +35% TPS, just as expected. Feel free to run your own benchmarks on different datasets and workloads. `perf top` shows that first bottleneck is completely eliminated. I did nothing about the second bottleneck since as Amit mentioned partition-pruning should solve this anyway and apparently any micro-optimizations don't worth an effort. Also I checked test coverage using lcov to make sure that this code is test covered. An exact script I'm using could be found here [1]. [1] https://github.com/afiskon/pgscripts/blob/master/code-coverage.sh On Wed, Mar 01, 2017 at 10:36:24AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote: > Hi, > > On 2017/02/28 23:25, Aleksander Alekseev wrote: > > Hello. > > > > I decided to figure out whether current implementation of declarative > > partitioning has any bottlenecks when there is a lot of partitions. Here > > is what I did [1]. > > Thanks for sharing. > > > Then: > > > > ``` > > # 2580 is some pk that exists > > echo 'select * from part_test where pk = 2580;' > t.sql > > pgbench -j 7 -c 7 -f t.sql -P 1 -T 300 eax > > ``` > > > > `perf top` showed to bottlenecks [2]. A stacktrace for the first one > > looks like this [3]: > > > > ``` > > 0x00000000007a42e2 in get_tabstat_entry (rel_id=25696, isshared=0 '\000') at pgstat.c:1689 > > 1689 if (entry->t_id == rel_id) > > #0 0x00000000007a42e2 in get_tabstat_entry (rel_id=25696, isshared=0 '\000') at pgstat.c:1689 > > #1 0x00000000007a4275 in pgstat_initstats (rel=0x7f4af3fd41f8) at pgstat.c:1666 > > #2 0x00000000004c7090 in relation_open (relationId=25696, lockmode=0) at heapam.c:1137 > > #3 0x00000000004c72c9 in heap_open (relationId=25696, lockmode=0) at heapam.c:1291 > > (skipped) > > ``` > > > > And here is a stacktrace for the second bottleneck [4]: > > > > ``` > > 0x0000000000584fb1 in find_all_inheritors (parentrelId=16393, lockmode=1, numparents=0x0) at pg_inherits.c:199 > > 199 forboth(lo, rels_list, li, rel_numparents) > > #0 0x0000000000584fb1 in find_all_inheritors (parentrelId=16393, lockmode=1, numparents=0x0) at pg_inherits.c:199 > > #1 0x000000000077fc9f in expand_inherited_rtentry (root=0x1badcb8, rte=0x1b630b8, rti=1) at prepunion.c:1408 > > #2 0x000000000077fb67 in expand_inherited_tables (root=0x1badcb8) at prepunion.c:1335 > > #3 0x0000000000767526 in subquery_planner (glob=0x1b63cc0, parse=0x1b62fa0, parent_root=0x0, hasRecursion=0 '\000',tuple_fraction=0) at planner.c:568 > > (skipped) > > ``` > > > > The first one could be easily fixed by introducing a hash table > > (rel_id -> pgStatList entry). Perhaps hash table should be used only > > after some threshold. Unless there are any objections I will send a > > corresponding patch shortly. > > I have never thought about this one really. > > > I didn't explored the second bottleneck closely yet but at first glance > > it doesn't look much more complicated. > > I don't know which way you're thinking of fixing this, but a planner patch > to implement faster partition-pruning will have taken care of this, I > think. As you may know, even declarative partitioned tables currently > depend on constraint exclusion for partition-pruning and planner's current > approach of handling inheritance requires to open all the child tables > (partitions), whereas the new approach hopefully shouldn't need to do > that. I am not sure if looking for a more localized fix for this would be > worthwhile, although I may be wrong. > > Thanks, > Amit > > -- Best regards, Aleksander Alekseev
Attachment
pgsql-hackers by date: