Re: track_planning causing performance regression - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
| From | Fujii Masao |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: track_planning causing performance regression |
| Date | |
| Msg-id | 94a5cda2-b814-d4a8-59d3-b5f00f889e71@oss.nttdata.com Whole thread Raw |
| In response to | Re: track_planning causing performance regression (Hamid Akhtar <hamid.akhtar@gmail.com>) |
| Responses |
Re: track_planning causing performance regression
|
| List | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020/08/17 18:34, Hamid Akhtar wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 2:21 PM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>> wrote: > > > > On 2020/07/31 21:40, Hamid Akhtar wrote: > > <https://commitfest.postgresql.org/29/2634/> > > > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 10:29 AM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com<mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>>> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 2020/07/04 12:22, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > > > > > > > pá 3. 7. 2020 v 13:02 odesílatel Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com><mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>> <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com<mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>>>>napsal: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2020/07/03 16:02, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > pá 3. 7. 2020 v 8:57 odesílatel Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com><mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>> <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com<mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>>><mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com<mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>> <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com><mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>>>>> napsal: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2020/07/03 13:05, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > > > pá 3. 7. 2020 v 4:39 odesílatel Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com><mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>> <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com<mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>>><mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com<mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>> <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com><mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>>>> <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com<mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>><mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com<mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>>> <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com > <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>> <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com<mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>>>>>>napsal: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2020/07/01 7:37, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 6:40 AM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com><mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>> <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com<mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>>><mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com<mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>> <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com><mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>>>> <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com<mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>><mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com<mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>>> > <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>><mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com<mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>>>>>> wrote: > > > > > >> Ants and Andres suggested to replace the spinlock used in pgss_store() with > > > > > >> LWLock. I agreed with them and posted the POC patch doing that. But I think > > > > > >> the patch is an item for v14. The patch may address the reported performance > > > > > >> issue, but may cause other performance issues in other workloads. We would > > > > > >> need to measure how the patch affects the performance in various workloads. > > > > > >> It seems too late to do that at this stage of v13. Thought? > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that it's too late for v13. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the comment! > > > > > > > > > > So I pushed the patch and changed default of track_planning to off. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe there can be documented so enabling this option can have a negative impact on performance. > > > > > > > > Yes. What about adding either of the followings into the doc? > > > > > > > > Enabling this parameter may incur a noticeable performance penalty. > > > > > > > > or > > > > > > > > Enabling this parameter may incur a noticeable performance penalty, > > > > especially when a fewer kinds of queries are executed on many > > > > concurrent connections. > > > > > > > > > > > > This second variant looks perfect for this case. > > > > > > Ok, so patch attached. > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > Thanks for the review! Pushed. > > > > Regards, > > > > -- > > Fujii Masao > > Advanced Computing Technology Center > > Research and Development Headquarters > > NTT DATA CORPORATION > > > > > > > > You might also want to update this patch's status in the commitfest: > > https://commitfest.postgresql.org/29/2634/ > > The patch added into this CF entry has not been committed yet. > So I was thinking that there is no need to update the status yet. No? > > > Your previous email suggested that it's been pushed, hence my comment. Checking the git log, I see a commit was pushedon July 6 (321fa6a) with the changes that match the latest patch. Yes, I pushed the document_overhead_by_track_planning.patch, but this CF entry is for pgss_lwlock_v1.patch which replaces spinlocks with lwlocks in pg_stat_statements. The latter patch has not been committed yet. Probably attachding the different patches in the same thread would cause this confusing thing... Anyway, thanks for your comment! Regards, -- Fujii Masao Advanced Computing Technology Center Research and Development Headquarters NTT DATA CORPORATION
pgsql-hackers by date: