Hi,
Every nbtree index build currently does an smgrimmedsync at the end:
/*
* Read tuples in correct sort order from tuplesort, and load them into
* btree leaves.
*/
static void
_bt_load(BTWriteState *wstate, BTSpool *btspool, BTSpool *btspool2)
...
/*
* When we WAL-logged index pages, we must nonetheless fsync index files.
* Since we're building outside shared buffers, a CHECKPOINT occurring
* during the build has no way to flush the previously written data to
* disk (indeed it won't know the index even exists). A crash later on
* would replay WAL from the checkpoint, therefore it wouldn't replay our
* earlier WAL entries. If we do not fsync those pages here, they might
* still not be on disk when the crash occurs.
*/
if (wstate->btws_use_wal)
{
RelationOpenSmgr(wstate->index);
smgrimmedsync(wstate->index->rd_smgr, MAIN_FORKNUM);
}
In cases we create lots of small indexes, e.g. because of an initial
schema load, partition creation or something like that, that turns out
to be a major limiting factor (unless one turns fsync off).
One way to address that would be to put newly built indexes into s_b
(using a strategy, to avoid blowing out the whole cache), instead of
using smgrwrite() etc directly. But that's a discussion with a bit more
complex tradeoffs.
What I wonder is why the issue addressed in the comment I copied above
can't more efficiently be addressed using sync requests, like we do for
other writes? It's possibly bit more complicated than just passing
skipFsync=false to smgrwrite/smgrextend, but it should be quite doable?
A quick hack (probably not quite correct!) to evaluate the benefit shows
that the attached script takes 2m17.223s with the smgrimmedsync and
0m22.870s passing skipFsync=false to write/extend. Entirely IO bound in
the former case, CPU bound in the latter.
Creating lots of tables with indexes (directly or indirectly through
relations having a toast table) is pretty common, particularly after the
introduction of partitioning.
Thinking through the correctness of replacing smgrimmedsync() with sync
requests, the potential problems that I can see are:
1) redo point falls between the log_newpage() and the
write()/register_dirty_segment() in smgrextend/smgrwrite.
2) redo point falls between write() and register_dirty_segment()
But both of these are fine in the context of initially filling a newly
created relfilenode, as far as I can tell? Otherwise the current
smgrimmedsync() approach wouldn't be safe either, as far as I can tell?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
