On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 1:15 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
> The good news is that these extra cycles aren't very noticeable even
> with a workload where deduplication doesn't help at all (e.g. with
> several indexes an append-only table, and few or no duplicates). The
> cycles are generally a fixed cost. Furthermore, it seems to be
> possible to virtually avoid the problem in the case of unique indexes
> by applying the incoming-item-is-duplicate heuristic. Maybe I am
> worrying over nothing.
Yeah, maybe. I'm tempted to advocate for dropping the GUC and keeping
the reloption. If the worst case is a 3% regression and you expect
that to be rare, I don't think a GUC is really worth it, especially
given that the proposed semantics seem somewhat confusing. The
reloption can be used in a pinch to protect against either bugs or
performance regressions, whichever may occur, and it doesn't seem like
you need a second mechanism.
> Again, maybe I'm making an excessively thin distinction. I really want
> to be able to enable the feature everywhere, while also not getting
> even one complaint about it. Perhaps that's just not a realistic or
> useful goal.
One thing that you could do is try to learn whether deduplication (I
really don't like that name, but here we are) seems to be working for
a given index, perhaps even in a given session. For instance, suppose
you keep track of what happened the last ten times the current session
attempted deduplication within a given index. Store the state in the
relcache. If all of the last ten tries were failures, then only try
1/4 of the time thereafter. If you have a success, go back to trying
every time. That's pretty crude, but it would might be good enough to
blunt the downsides to the point where you can stop worrying.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
