On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Improve performance of get_actual_variable_range with recently-dead tuples.
>
> In commit fccebe421, we hacked get_actual_variable_range() to scan the
> index with SnapshotDirty, so that if there are many uncommitted tuples
> at the end of the index range, it wouldn't laboriously scan through all
> of them looking for a live value to return. However, that didn't fix it
> for the case of many recently-dead tuples at the end of the index;
> SnapshotDirty recognizes those as committed dead and so we're back to
> the same problem.
>
> To improve the situation, invent a "SnapshotNonVacuumable" snapshot type
> and use that instead. The reason this helps is that, if the snapshot
> rejects a given index entry, we know that the indexscan will mark that
> index entry as killed. This means the next get_actual_variable_range()
> scan will proceed past that entry without visiting the heap, making the
> scan a lot faster. We may end up accepting a recently-dead tuple as
> being the estimated extremal value, but that doesn't seem much worse than
> the compromise we made before to accept not-yet-committed extremal values.
>
> The cost of the scan is still proportional to the number of dead index
> entries at the end of the range, so in the interval after a mass delete
> but before VACUUM's cleaned up the mess, it's still possible for
> get_actual_variable_range() to take a noticeable amount of time, if you've
> got enough such dead entries. But the constant factor is much much better
> than before, since all we need to do with each index entry is test its
> "killed" bit.
>
> We chose to back-patch commit fccebe421 at the time, but I'm hesitant to
> do so here, because this form of the problem seems to affect many fewer
> people. Also, even when it happens, it's less bad than the case fixed
> by commit fccebe421 because we don't get the contention effects from
> expensive TransactionIdIsInProgress tests.
>
> Dmitriy Sarafannikov, reviewed by Andrey Borodin
>
> Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/05C72CF7-B5F6-4DB9-8A09-5AC897653113@yandex.ru
>
> Branch
> ------
> master
>
> Details
> -------
> https://git.postgresql.org/pg/commitdiff/3ca930fc39ccf987c1c22fd04a1e7463b5dd0dfd
>
> Modified Files
> --------------
> src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c | 3 +++
> src/backend/utils/adt/selfuncs.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> src/backend/utils/time/tqual.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
> src/include/utils/snapshot.h | 4 +++-
> src/include/utils/tqual.h | 10 ++++++++++
> 5 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
>
While reading README in nbtree I found a sentence about snapshot that
is "There is one minor exception, which is that the optimizer
sometimes looks at the boundaries of value ranges using
SnapshotDirty". As the snapshot being used has been changed to
SnapshotNonVacuumable by this commit should we fix this sentence?
Attached a patch for fixing this.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
--
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
