On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Jignesh Shah wrote:
>>
>> The commit_siblings = 5 basically checks that it sleeps only when that
>> many backends are active. This I think is a very expensive check and I
>> would rather make commit_siblings=0 (which the current code does not
>> support.. it only supports minimum of 1)
>
> I just posted a message to the Facebook group sorting out the confusion in
> terminology there.
>
> The code Jignesh is alluding to does this:
>
> if (CommitDelay > 0 && enableFsync &&
> CountActiveBackends() >= CommitSiblings)
> pg_usleep(CommitDelay);
>
> And the expensive part of the overhead beyond the delay itself is
> CountActiveBackends(), which iterates over the entire procArray structure.
> Note that it doesn't bother acquiring ProcArrayLock for that, as some small
> inaccuracy isn't really a problem for what it's using the number for. And
> it ignores backends waiting on a lock too, as unlikely to commit in the near
> future.
>
> The siblings count is the only thing that keeps this delay from kicking in
> on every single commit when the feature is turned on, which it is by
> default. I fear that a reworking in the direction Jignesh is suggesting
> here, where that check was removed, would cripple situations where only a
> single process was trying to get commits accomplished.
> As for why this somewhat weird feature hasn't been removed yet, it's mainly
> because we have some benchmarks from Jignesh proving its value in the hands
> of an expert. If you have a system with a really high-transaction rate,
> where you can expect that the server is constantly busy and commits are
> being cached (and subsequently written to physical disk asyncronously), a
> brief pause after each commit helps chunk commits into the write cache as
> more efficient blocks. It seems a little counter-intuititive, but it does
> seem to work.
>
> The number of people who are actually in that position are very few though,
> so for the most part this parameter is just a magnet for people to set
> incorrectly because they don't understand it. With this additional insight
> from Jignesh clearing up some of the questions I had about this, I'm tempted
> to pull commit_siblings altogether, make commit_delay default to 0, and
> update the docs to say something suggesting "this will slow down every
> commit you make; only increase it if you have a high commit rate system
> where that's necessary to get better commit chunking".
>
> --
> Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg@2ndQuadrant.com Baltimore, MD
> PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support www.2ndQuadrant.us
> "PostgreSQL 9.0 High Performance": http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books
>
>
Yes I agree with the plan here.. Take out commit_siblings, default
commit_delay to zero (which is already the case) and add a warning
in the docs that it will slow down your commits (on an individual
basis).
The only reason I still want to keep commit_delay is to make it act as
a controller or drummer if you will.. ( if you have read the book:
"Theory of contstraints" by Dr Eli Goldratt)
Thanks.
Regards,
Jignesh
