Re: Performance degradation of REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Masahiko Sawada |
---|---|
Subject | Re: Performance degradation of REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW |
Date | |
Msg-id | CAD21AoA2-akRfq9bquVi+gNc34sOORqaeLpiiYwmKhsYC_mUxw@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: Performance degradation of REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com>) |
Responses |
Re: Performance degradation of REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW
|
List | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 10:43 PM Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > > > On 4/27/21 7:34 AM, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 8:07 AM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> On 2021-04-26 23:59:17 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote: > >>> On 4/26/21 9:27 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > >>>> On 2021-04-26 15:31:02 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote: > >>>>> I'm not sure what to do about this :-( I don't have any ideas about how to > >>>>> eliminate this overhead, so the only option I see is reverting the changes > >>>>> in heap_insert. Unfortunately, that'd mean inserts into TOAST tables won't > >>>>> be frozen ... > >>>> > >>>> ISTM that the fundamental issue here is not that we acquire pins that we > >>>> shouldn't, but that we do so at a much higher frequency than needed. > >>>> > >>>> It's probably too invasive for 14, but I think it might be worth exploring > >>>> passing down a BulkInsertState in nodeModifyTable.c's table_tuple_insert() iff > >>>> the input will be more than one row. > >>>> > >>>> And then add the vm buffer of the target page to BulkInsertState, so that > >>>> hio.c can avoid re-pinning the buffer. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Yeah. The question still is what to do about 14, though. Shall we leave the > >>> code as it is now, or should we change it somehow? It seem a bit unfortunate > >>> that a COPY FREEZE optimization should negatively influence other (more) > >>> common use cases, so I guess we can't just keep the current code ... > >> > >> I'd suggest prototyping the use of BulkInsertState in nodeModifyTable.c > >> and see whether that fixes the regression. > > > > Is this idea to have RelationGetBufferForTuple() skip re-pinning > > vmbuffer? If so, is this essentially the same as the one in the v3 > > patch? > > > > I don't think it is the same approach - it's a bit hard to follow what > exactly happens in RelationGetBufferForTuple, but AFAICS it always > starts with vmbuffer = InvalidBuffer, so it may pin the vmbuffer quite > often, no? With that patch, we pin the vmbuffer only when inserting a frozen tuple into an empty page. That is, when inserting a frozen tuple into an empty page, we pin the vmbuffer and heap_insert() will mark the page all-visible and set all-frozen bit on vm. And from the next insertion (into the same page) until the page gets full, since the page is already all-visible, we skip pinning the vmbuffer. IOW, if the target page is not empty but all-visible, we skip pinning the vmbuffer. We pin the vmbuffer only once per heap page used during insertion. > > What Andres is suggesting (I think) is to modify ExecInsert() to pass a > valid bistate to table_tuple_insert, instead of just NULL, and store the > vmbuffer in it. Understood. This approach keeps using the same vmbuffer until we need another vm page corresponding to the target heap page, which seems better. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
pgsql-hackers by date: