On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 at 14:16, Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 11:01 AM Masahiko Sawada
> <masahiko.saw...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 at 15:38, Masahiko Sawada
> > <masahiko.saw...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 at 15:34, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 11:37 AM Masahiko Sawada
> > > > <masahiko.saw...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 13 Nov 2019 at 14:31, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Based on these needs, we came up with a way to allow users to
> > > > > > specify
> > > > > > this information for IndexAm's. Basically, Indexam will expose a
> > > > > > variable amparallelvacuumoptions which can have below options
> > > > > >
> > > > > > VACUUM_OPTION_NO_PARALLEL 1 << 0 # vacuum (neither bulkdelete nor
> > > > > > vacuumcleanup) can't be performed in parallel
> > > > >
> > > > > I think VACUUM_OPTION_NO_PARALLEL can be 0 so that index AMs who don't
> > > > > want to support parallel vacuum don't have to set anything.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > make sense.
> > > >
> > > > > > VACUUM_OPTION_PARALLEL_BULKDEL 1 << 1 # bulkdelete can be done in
> > > > > > parallel (Indexes nbtree, hash, gin, gist, spgist, bloom will set
> > > > > > this
> > > > > > flag)
> > > > > > VACUUM_OPTION_PARALLEL_COND_CLEANUP 1 << 2 # vacuumcleanup can be
> > > > > > done in parallel if bulkdelete is not performed (Indexes nbtree,
> > > > > > brin,
> > > > > > gin, gist,
> > > > > > spgist, bloom will set this flag)
> > > > > > VACUUM_OPTION_PARALLEL_CLEANUP 1 << 3 # vacuumcleanup can be done
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > parallel even if bulkdelete is already performed (Indexes gin, brin,
> > > > > > and bloom will set this flag)
> > > > >
> > > > > I think gin and bloom don't need to set both but should set only
> > > > > VACUUM_OPTION_PARALLEL_CLEANUP.
> > > > >
> > > > > And I'm going to disallow index AMs to set both
> > > > > VACUUM_OPTION_PARALLEL_COND_CLEANUP and VACUUM_OPTION_PARALLEL_CLEANUP
> > > > > by assertions, is that okay?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sounds reasonable to me.
> > > >
> > > > Are you planning to include the changes related to I/O throttling
> > > > based on the discussion in the nearby thread [1]? I think you can do
> > > > that if you agree with the conclusion in the last email[1], otherwise,
> > > > we can explore it separately.
> > >
> > > Yes I agreed. I'm going to include that changes in the next version
> > > patches. And I think we will be able to do more discussion based on
> > > the patch.
> > >
> >
> > I've attached the latest version patch set. The patch set includes all
> > discussed points regarding index AM options as well as shared cost
> > balance. Also I added some test cases used all types of index AM.
> >
> > During developments I had one concern about the number of parallel
> > workers to launch. In current design each index AMs can choose the
> > participation of parallel bulk-deletion and parallel cleanup. That
> > also means the number of parallel worker to launch might be different
> > for each time of parallel bulk-deletion and parallel cleanup. In
> > current patch the leader will always launch the number of indexes that
> > support either one but it would not be efficient in some cases. For
> > example, if we have 3 indexes supporting only parallel bulk-deletion
> > and 2 indexes supporting only parallel index cleanup, we would launch
> > 5 workers for each execution but some workers will do nothing at all.
> > To deal with this problem, I wonder if we can improve the parallel
> > query so that the leader process creates a parallel context with the
> > maximum number of indexes and can launch a part of workers instead of
> > all of them.
> >
> +
> + /* compute new balance by adding the local value */
> + shared_balance = pg_atomic_read_u32(VacuumSharedCostBalance);
> + new_balance = shared_balance + VacuumCostBalance;
>
> + /* also compute the total local balance */
> + local_balance = VacuumCostBalanceLocal + VacuumCostBalance;
> +
> + if ((new_balance >= VacuumCostLimit) &&
> + (local_balance > 0.5 * (VacuumCostLimit / nworkers)))
> + {
> + /* compute sleep time based on the local cost balance */
> + msec = VacuumCostDelay * VacuumCostBalanceLocal / VacuumCostLimit;
> + new_balance = shared_balance - VacuumCostBalanceLocal;
> + VacuumCostBalanceLocal = 0;
> + }
> +
> + if (pg_atomic_compare_exchange_u32(VacuumSharedCostBalance,
> + &shared_balance,
> + new_balance))
> + {
> + /* Updated successfully, break */
> + break;
> + }
> While looking at the shared costing delay part, I have noticed that
> while checking the delay condition, we are considering local_balance
> which is VacuumCostBalanceLocal + VacuumCostBalance, but while
> computing the new balance we only reduce shared balance by
> VacuumCostBalanceLocal, I think it should be reduced with
> local_balance?
Right.
> I see that later we are adding VacuumCostBalance to
> the VacuumCostBalanceLocal so we are not loosing accounting for this
> balance. But, I feel it is not right that we compare based on one
> value and operate based on other. I think we can immediately set
> VacuumCostBalanceLocal += VacuumCostBalance before checking the
> condition.
I think we should not do VacuumCostBalanceLocal += VacuumCostBalance
inside the while loop because it's repeatedly executed until CAS
operation succeeds. Instead we can move it before the loop and remove
local_balance? The code would be like the following:
if (VacuumSharedCostBalance != NULL)
{
:
VacuumCostBalanceLocal += VacuumCostBalance;
:
/* Update the shared cost balance value atomically */
while (true)
{
uint32 shared_balance;
uint32 new_balance;
msec = 0;
/* compute new balance by adding the local value */
shared_balance = pg_atomic_read_u32(VacuumSharedCostBalance);
new_balance = shared_balance + VacuumCostBalance;
if ((new_balance >= VacuumCostLimit) &&
(VacuumCostBalanceLocal > 0.5 * (VacuumCostLimit / nworkers)))
{
/* compute sleep time based on the local cost balance */
msec = VacuumCostDelay * VacuumCostBalanceLocal / VacuumCostLimit;
new_balance = shared_balance - VacuumCostBalanceLocal;
VacuumCostBalanceLocal = 0;
}
if (pg_atomic_compare_exchange_u32(VacuumSharedCostBalance,
&shared_balance,
new_balance))
{
/* Updated successfully, break */
break;
}
}
:
VacuumCostBalance = 0;
}
Thoughts?
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
