Re: Introduce new multi insert Table AM and improve performance of various SQL commands with it for Heap AM - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jingtang Zhang
Subject Re: Introduce new multi insert Table AM and improve performance of various SQL commands with it for Heap AM
Date
Msg-id 9F9326B4-8AD9-4858-B1C1-559FC64E6E93@gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: New Table Access Methods for Multi and Single Inserts  (Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi~

I did some performance test these days, and I have some findings.

From the archive months ago, I found there were discussions about which type
of TupleTableSlot to use for buffering tuples. A single column mat view was
used for evaluation. Finally we used virtual one.

However when I test with a 32-columns mat view, I get regression.

Test case:

-- prepare
create table test as
  select
    i as id0,
    i + 1 as id1,
    i + 2 as id2,
    i + 3 as id3,
    i + 4 as id4,
    i + 5 as id5,
    i + 6 as id6,
    i + 7 as id7,
    i + 8 as id8,
    i + 9 as id9,
    i + 10 as id10,
    i + 11 as id11,
    i + 12 as id12,
    i + 13 as id13,
    i + 14 as id14,
    i + 15 as id15,
    i + 0.01 as f0,
    i + 0.1 as f1,
    i + 0.2 as f2,
    i + 0.3 as f3,
    i + 0.4 as f4,
    i + 0.5 as f5,
    i + 0.6 as f6,
    i + 0.7 as f7,
    i + 0.8 as f8,
    i + 0.9 as f9,
    i + 1.01 as f10,
    i + 1.1 as f11,
    i + 1.2 as f12,
    i + 1.3 as f13,
    i + 1.4 as f14,
    i + 1.5 as f15,
    i + 1.6 as f16
  from generate_series(1,5000000) i;

-- run
create materialized view m1 as select * from test;


HEAD:
Time: 13615.542 ms (00:13.616)
Time: 13545.706 ms (00:13.546)
Time: 13578.475 ms (00:13.578)

Patched
Time: 20112.734 ms (00:20.113)
Time: 19996.957 ms (00:19.997)
Time: 19936.871 ms (00:19.937)


I did a quick perf, the overhead seems to come from virtual tuple materialization.

HEAD:
  12.29%  postgres            [.] pg_checksum_block
   6.33%  postgres            [.] GetPrivateRefCountEntry
   5.40%  postgres            [.] pg_comp_crc32c_sse42
   4.54%  [kernel]            [k] copy_user_enhanced_fast_string
   2.69%  postgres            [.] BufferIsValid
   1.52%  postgres            [.] XLogRecordAssemble

Patched:
  11.75%  postgres            [.] tts_virtual_materialize
   8.87%  postgres            [.] pg_checksum_block
   8.17%  postgres            [.] slot_deform_heap_tuple
   8.09%  postgres            [.] heap_compute_data_size
   6.17%  postgres            [.] fill_val
   3.81%  postgres            [.] heap_fill_tuple
   3.37%  postgres            [.] tts_virtual_copyslot
   2.62%  [kernel]            [k] copy_user_enhanced_fast_string

Not sure if it is a universal situation.


—
Regards, Jingtang





pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: Pgoutput not capturing the generated columns
Next
From: Bertrand Drouvot
Date:
Subject: Re: per backend I/O statistics