Re: BUG #16104: Invalid DSA Memory Alloc Request in Parallel Hash - Mailing list pgsql-bugs

From Tomas Vondra
Subject Re: BUG #16104: Invalid DSA Memory Alloc Request in Parallel Hash
Date
Msg-id 20191210204132.wyb7bt6pi7konmnh@development
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: BUG #16104: Invalid DSA Memory Alloc Request in Parallel Hash  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-bugs
On Tue, Dec 10, 2019 at 02:49:42PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> As for the performance impact, I did this:
>
>>    create table dim (id int, val text);
>>    insert into dim select i, md5(i::text) from generate_series(1,1000000) s(i);
>>    create table fact (id int, val text);
>>    insert into fact select mod(i,1000000)+1, md5(i::text) from generate_series(1,25000000) s(i);
>>    set max_parallel_workers_per_gather = 0;
>>    select count(*) from fact join dim using (id);
>
>> So a perfectly regular join between 1M and 25M table. On my machine,
>> this takes ~8851ms on master and 8979ms with the patch (average of about
>> 20 runs with minimal variability). That's ~1.4% regression, so a bit
>> more than the 0.4% mentioned before. Not a huge difference though, and
>> some of it might be due to different binary layout etc.
>
>Hmm ... I replicated this experiment here, using my usual precautions
>to get more-or-less-reproducible numbers [1].  I concur that the
>patch seems to be slower, but only by around half a percent on the
>median numbers, which is much less than the run-to-run variation.
>

Sounds good.

>So that would be fine --- except that in my first set of runs,
>I forgot the "set max_parallel_workers_per_gather" step and hence
>tested this same data set with a parallel hash join.  And in that
>scenario, I got a repeatable slowdown of around 7.5%, which is far
>above the noise floor.  So that's not good --- why does this change
>make PHJ worse?
>

Hmmm, I can't reproduce this. For me the timings from 20 runs look like
this:

              master         |          patched
     workers=2    workers=5  |   workers=2    workers=5
    -------------------------|--------------------------
          3153         1785  |        3185         1790
          3167         1783  |        3220         1783

I haven't done the extra steps with cpupower/taskset, but the numbers
seem pretty consistent. I'll try on another machine tomorrow.


regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services 



pgsql-bugs by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: BUG #16104: Invalid DSA Memory Alloc Request in Parallel Hash
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Warning in the RecordTransactionAbort routine during compilationwith O3 flag