On 15.11.2013 07:47, David Rowley wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com
>> wrote
>>
>> I think that means that we should just completely replace the list with
>> the hash table. The difference with a small N is lost in noise, so there's
>> no point in keeping the list as a fast path for small N. That'll make the
>> patch somewhat simpler.
>
> Attached is a much more simple patch which gets rid of the initial linked
> list.
Thanks, committed with minor copy-editing. I dialed down the initial
size of the hash table from 1000 to 16, that ought to be enough.
I ran a quick performance test of my own, based on the script you sent.
I modified it a bit to eliminate the PL/pgSQL overhead, making it more
heavily bottlenecked by the nextval/currval overhead. Results:
nextval, 10000 seqs 36772 2426
currval, 1 seq 1176 1069
currval, 2 seqs 865 857
currval, 4 seqs 742 759
currval, 5 seqs 718 711
currval, 10 seqs 680 668
currval, 100 seqs 871 656
currval, 1000 seqs 3507 700
currval, 10000 seqs 34742 1224
The performance when you touch only a few sequences is unchanged. When
you touch a lot of them, you gain. Just as you would expect.
Attached is the test script I used. After running the test, I realized
that there's a little flaw in the test methodology, but I doesn't
invalidates the results. I used the same backend for all the test runs,
so even when currval() is called repeatedly for a single sequence, the
linked list (or hash table, with the patch) nevertheless contains
entries for all 10000 sequences. However, the sequences actually used by
the test are always in the front of the list, because the nextval()
calls were made in the same order. But with the unpatched version, if
you called currval() on the lastly initialized sequence repeatedly,
instead of the firstly initialized one, you would get much would get
horrible performance, even when you touch only a single sequence.
Regarding the more grandiose ideas of using the relcache or rewriting
the way sequences are stored altogether: this patch might become
obsolete if we do any of that stuff, but that's ok. The immediate
performance problem has been solved now, but those other ideas might be
worth pursuing for other reasons.
- Heikki
