On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 3:02 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2024 at 11:11 PM Nisha Moond <nisha.moond412@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Here is further performance test analysis with v16 patch-set.
> >
> >
> > In the test scenarios already shared on -hackers [1], where pgbench was run only on the publisher node in a pub-sub
setup,no performance degradation was observed on either node.
> >
> >
> >
> > In contrast, when pgbench was run only on the subscriber side with detect_update_deleted=on [2], the TPS
performancewas reduced due to dead tuple accumulation. This performance drop depended on the
wal_receiver_status_interval—largerintervals resulted in more dead tuple accumulation on the subscriber node. However,
afterthe improvement in patch v16-0002, which dynamically tunes the status request, the default TPS reduction was
limitedto only 1%.
> >
> >
> >
> > We performed more benchmarks with the v16-patches where pgbench was run on both the publisher and subscriber,
focusingon TPS performance. To summarize the key observations:
> >
> > - No performance impact on the publisher as dead tuple accumulation does not occur on the publisher.
>
> Nice. It means that frequently getting in-commit-phase transactions by
> the subscriber didn't have a negative impact on the publisher's
> performance.
>
> >
> > - The performance is reduced on the subscriber side (TPS reduction (~50%) [3] ) due to dead tuple retention for
theconflict detection when detect_update_deleted=on.
> >
> > - Performance reduction happens only on the subscriber side, as workload on the publisher is pretty high and the
applyworkers must wait for the amount of transactions with earlier timestamps to be applied and flushed before
advancingthe non-removable XID to remove dead tuples.
>
> Assuming that the performance dip happened due to dead tuple retention
> for the conflict detection, would TPS on other databases also be
> affected?
>
As we use slot->xmin to retain dead tuples, shouldn't the impact be
global (means on all databases)? Or, maybe I am missing something.
> >
> >
> > [3] Test with pgbench run on both publisher and subscriber.
> >
> >
> >
> > Test setup:
> >
> > - Tests performed on pgHead + v16 patches
> >
> > - Created a pub-sub replication system.
> >
> > - Parameters for both instances were:
> >
> >
> >
> > share_buffers = 30GB
> >
> > min_wal_size = 10GB
> >
> > max_wal_size = 20GB
> >
> > autovacuum = false
>
> Since you disabled autovacuum on the subscriber, dead tuples created
> by non-hot updates are accumulated anyway regardless of
> detect_update_deleted setting, is that right?
>
I think hot-pruning mechanism during the update operation will remove
dead tuples even when autovacuum is disabled.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
