Re: drop/truncate table sucks for large values of shared buffers - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: drop/truncate table sucks for large values of shared buffers
Date
Msg-id CANP8+j+m=hHHf37nczTHLOE-obQwEAdxT8RdDMZFDih53SuYFg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: drop/truncate table sucks for large values of shared buffers  (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>)
Responses Re: drop/truncate table sucks for large values of shared buffers  (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>)
Re: drop/truncate table sucks for large values of shared buffers  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2 July 2015 at 14:08, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:
On 06/27/2015 07:45 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
Sometime back on one of the PostgreSQL blog [1], there was
discussion about the performance of drop/truncate table for
large values of shared_buffers and it seems that as the value
of shared_buffers increase the performance of drop/truncate
table becomes worse.  I think those are not often used operations,
so it never became priority to look into improving them if possible.

I have looked into it and found that the main reason for such
a behaviour is that for those operations it traverses whole
shared_buffers and it seems to me that we don't need that
especially for not-so-big tables.  We can optimize that path
by looking into buff mapping table for the pages that exist in
shared_buffers for the case when table size is less than some
threshold (say 25%) of shared buffers.

Attached patch implements the above idea and I found that
performance doesn't dip much with patch even with large value
of shared_buffers.  I have also attached script and sql file used
to take performance data.

I'm marking this as "returned with feedback" in the commitfest. In addition to the issues raised so far, ISTM that the patch makes dropping a very large table with small shared_buffers slower (DropForkSpecificBuffers() is O(n) where n is the size of the relation, while the current method is O(shared_buffers))

There are no unresolved issues with the approach, nor is it true it is slower. If you think there are some, you should say what they are, not act high handedly to reject a patch without reason.

I concur that we should explore using a radix tree or something else that would naturally allow you to find all buffers for relation/database X quickly.

I doubt that it can be managed efficiently while retaining optimal memory management. If it can its going to be very low priority (or should be).

This approach works, so lets do it, now. If someone comes up with a better way later, great.

--
Simon Riggs                http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: WALWriter active during recovery
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: WALWriter active during recovery