On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 5:22 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2020 at 1:43 AM Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@oss.nttdata.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2020/11/26 10:41, Kasahara Tatsuhito wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 8:46 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 4:18 PM Kasahara Tatsuhito
> > >> <kasahara.tatsuh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 2:17 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2020 at 7:50 PM Kasahara Tatsuhito
> > >>>> <kasahara.tatsuh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Hi,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 2:10 AM Kasahara Tatsuhito
> > >>>>> <kasahara.tatsuh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>> I wonder if we could have table_recheck_autovac do two probes of
> > >>>>>>> the stats
> > >>>>>>> data. First probe the existing stats data, and if it shows the
> > >>>>>>> table to
> > >>>>>>> be already vacuumed, return immediately. If not, *then* force a
> > >>>>>>> stats
> > >>>>>>> re-read, and check a second time.
> > >>>>>> Does the above mean that the second and subsequent
> > >>>>>> table_recheck_autovac()
> > >>>>>> will be improved to first check using the previous refreshed
> > >>>>>> statistics?
> > >>>>>> I think that certainly works.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> If that's correct, I'll try to create a patch for the PoC
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I still don't know how to reproduce Jim's troubles, but I was able to
> > >>>>> reproduce
> > >>>>> what was probably a very similar problem.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> This problem seems to be more likely to occur in cases where you have
> > >>>>> a large number of tables,
> > >>>>> i.e., a large amount of stats, and many small tables need VACUUM at
> > >>>>> the same time.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> So I followed Tom's advice and created a patch for the PoC.
> > >>>>> This patch will enable a flag in the table_recheck_autovac function
> > >>>>> to use
> > >>>>> the existing stats next time if VACUUM (or ANALYZE) has already been
> > >>>>> done
> > >>>>> by another worker on the check after the stats have been updated.
> > >>>>> If the tables continue to require VACUUM after the refresh, then a
> > >>>>> refresh
> > >>>>> will be required instead of using the existing statistics.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> I did simple test with HEAD and HEAD + this PoC patch.
> > >>>>> The tests were conducted in two cases.
> > >>>>> (I changed few configurations. see attached scripts)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 1. Normal VACUUM case
> > >>>>> - SET autovacuum = off
> > >>>>> - CREATE tables with 100 rows
> > >>>>> - DELETE 90 rows for each tables
> > >>>>> - SET autovacuum = on and restart PostgreSQL
> > >>>>> - Measure the time it takes for all tables to be VACUUMed
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 2. Anti wrap round VACUUM case
> > >>>>> - CREATE brank tables
> > >>>>> - SELECT all of these tables (for generate stats)
> > >>>>> - SET autovacuum_freeze_max_age to low values and restart
> > >>>>> PostgreSQL
> > >>>>> - Consumes a lot of XIDs by using txid_curent()
> > >>>>> - Measure the time it takes for all tables to be VACUUMed
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> For each test case, the following results were obtained by changing
> > >>>>> autovacuum_max_workers parameters to 1, 2, 3(def) 5 and 10.
> > >>>>> Also changing num of tables to 1000, 5000, 10000 and 20000.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Due to the poor VM environment (2 VCPU/4 GB), the results are a
> > >>>>> little unstable,
> > >>>>> but I think it's enough to ask for a trend.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> ===========================================================================
> > >>>>> [1.Normal VACUUM case]
> > >>>>> tables:1000
> > >>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 1: (HEAD) 20 sec VS (with patch) 20 sec
> > >>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 2: (HEAD) 18 sec VS (with patch) 16 sec
> > >>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 3: (HEAD) 18 sec VS (with patch) 16 sec
> > >>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 5: (HEAD) 19 sec VS (with patch) 17 sec
> > >>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 10: (HEAD) 19 sec VS (with patch) 17 sec
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> tables:5000
> > >>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 1: (HEAD) 77 sec VS (with patch) 78 sec
> > >>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 2: (HEAD) 61 sec VS (with patch) 43 sec
> > >>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 3: (HEAD) 38 sec VS (with patch) 38 sec
> > >>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 5: (HEAD) 45 sec VS (with patch) 37 sec
> > >>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 10: (HEAD) 43 sec VS (with patch) 35 sec
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> tables:10000
> > >>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 1: (HEAD) 152 sec VS (with patch) 153 sec
> > >>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 2: (HEAD) 119 sec VS (with patch) 98 sec
> > >>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 3: (HEAD) 87 sec VS (with patch) 78 sec
> > >>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 5: (HEAD) 100 sec VS (with patch) 66 sec
> > >>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 10: (HEAD) 97 sec VS (with patch) 56 sec
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> tables:20000
> > >>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 1: (HEAD) 338 sec VS (with patch) 339 sec
> > >>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 2: (HEAD) 231 sec VS (with patch) 229 sec
> > >>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 3: (HEAD) 220 sec VS (with patch) 191 sec
> > >>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 5: (HEAD) 234 sec VS (with patch) 147 sec
> > >>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 10: (HEAD) 320 sec VS (with patch) 113 sec
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> [2.Anti wrap round VACUUM case]
> > >>>>> tables:1000
> > >>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 1: (HEAD) 19 sec VS (with patch) 18 sec
> > >>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 2: (HEAD) 14 sec VS (with patch) 15 sec
> > >>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 3: (HEAD) 14 sec VS (with patch) 14 sec
> > >>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 5: (HEAD) 14 sec VS (with patch) 16 sec
> > >>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 10: (HEAD) 16 sec VS (with patch) 14 sec
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> tables:5000
> > >>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 1: (HEAD) 69 sec VS (with patch) 69 sec
> > >>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 2: (HEAD) 66 sec VS (with patch) 47 sec
> > >>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 3: (HEAD) 59 sec VS (with patch) 37 sec
> > >>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 5: (HEAD) 39 sec VS (with patch) 28 sec
> > >>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 10: (HEAD) 39 sec VS (with patch) 29 sec
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> tables:10000
> > >>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 1: (HEAD) 139 sec VS (with patch) 138 sec
> > >>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 2: (HEAD) 130 sec VS (with patch) 86 sec
> > >>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 3: (HEAD) 120 sec VS (with patch) 68 sec
> > >>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 5: (HEAD) 96 sec VS (with patch) 41 sec
> > >>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 10: (HEAD) 90 sec VS (with patch) 39 sec
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> tables:20000
> > >>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 1: (HEAD) 313 sec VS (with patch) 331 sec
> > >>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 2: (HEAD) 209 sec VS (with patch) 201 sec
> > >>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 3: (HEAD) 227 sec VS (with patch) 141 sec
> > >>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 5: (HEAD) 236 sec VS (with patch) 88 sec
> > >>>>> autovacuum_max_workers 10: (HEAD) 309 sec VS (with patch) 74 sec
> > >>>>> ===========================================================================
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> The cases without patch, the scalability of the worker has decreased
> > >>>>> as the number of tables has increased.
> > >>>>> In fact, the more workers there are, the longer it takes to complete
> > >>>>> VACUUM to all tables.
> > >>>>> The cases with patch, it shows good scalability with respect to the
> > >>>>> number of workers.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It seems a good performance improvement even without the patch of
> > >>>> shared memory based stats collector.
> >
> > Sounds great!
> >
> >
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Note that perf top results showed that hash_search_with_hash_value,
> > >>>>> hash_seq_search and
> > >>>>> pgstat_read_statsfiles are dominant during VACUUM in all patterns,
> > >>>>> with or without the patch.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Therefore, there is still a need to find ways to optimize the reading
> > >>>>> of large amounts of stats.
> > >>>>> However, this patch is effective in its own right, and since there are
> > >>>>> only a few parts to modify,
> > >>>>> I think it should be able to be applied to current (preferably
> > >>>>> pre-v13) PostgreSQL.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> +1
> > >>>>
> > >>>> +
> > >>>> + /* We might be better to refresh stats */
> > >>>> + use_existing_stats = false;
> > >>>> }
> > >>>> + else
> > >>>> + {
> > >>>>
> > >>>> - heap_freetuple(classTup);
> > >>>> + heap_freetuple(classTup);
> > >>>> + /* The relid has already vacuumed, so we might be better to
> > >>>> use exiting stats */
> > >>>> + use_existing_stats = true;
> > >>>> + }
> > >>>>
> > >>>> With that patch, the autovacuum process refreshes the stats in the
> > >>>> next check if it finds out that the table still needs to be vacuumed.
> > >>>> But I guess it's not necessarily true because the next table might be
> > >>>> vacuumed already. So I think we might want to always use the existing
> > >>>> for the first check. What do you think?
> > >>> Thanks for your comment.
> > >>>
> > >>> If we assume the case where some workers vacuum on large tables
> > >>> and a single worker vacuum on small tables, the processing
> > >>> performance of the single worker will be slightly lower if the
> > >>> existing statistics are checked every time.
> > >>>
> > >>> In fact, at first I tried to check the existing stats every time,
> > >>> but the performance was slightly worse in cases with a small number of
> > >>> workers.
> >
> > Do you have this benchmark result?
>
> FWIW I'd like to share the benchmark results of the same test in my
> environment as Kasahara-san did. In this performance evaluation, I
> measured the execution time for the loop in do_autovacuum(), line 2318
> in autovacuum.c, where taking a major time of autovacuum. So it checks
> how much time an autovacuum worker took to process the list of the
> collected all tables, including refreshing and checking the stats,
> vacuuming tables, and checking the existing stats. Since all tables
> are the same size (only 1 page) there is no big difference in the
> execution time between concurrent autovacuum workers. The following
> results show the maximum execution time among the autovacuum workers.
> From the left the execution time of the current HEAD, Kasahara-san's
> patch, the method of always checking the existing stats, in seconds.
> The result has a similar trend to what Kasahara-san mentioned.
Thanks!
Yes, I think the results are as expected.
> 1000 tables:
> autovac_workers 1 : 13s, 13s, 13s
> autovac_workers 2 : 6s, 4s, 5s
> autovac_workers 3 : 3s, 4s, 4s
> autovac_workers 5 : 3s, 3s, 3s
> autovac_workers 10: 2s, 3s, 3s
>
> 5000 tables:
> autovac_workers 1 : 71s, 71s, 132s
> autovac_workers 2 : 37s, 32s, 48s
> autovac_workers 3 : 29s, 26s, 38s
> autovac_workers 5 : 20s, 19s, 19s
> autovac_workers 10: 13s, 8s, 9s
>
> 10000 tables:
> autovac_workers 1 : 158s,157s, 290s
> autovac_workers 2 : 80s, 53s, 151s
> autovac_workers 3 : 75s, 67s, 89s
> autovac_workers 5 : 61s, 42s, 53s
> autovac_workers 10: 69s, 26s, 33s
>
> 20000 tables:
> autovac_workers 1 : 379s, 380s, 695s
> autovac_workers 2 : 236s, 232s, 369s
> autovac_workers 3 : 222s, 181s, 238s
> autovac_workers 5 : 212s, 132s, 167s
> autovac_workers 10: 317s, 91s, 117s
>
> I'm benchmarking the performance improvement by the patch on other
> workloads. I'll share that result.
+1
If you would like to try the patch I just posted, it would be very helpful.
Best regards,
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Masahiko Sawada
> EnterpriseDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
--
Tatsuhito Kasahara
kasahara.tatsuhito _at_ gmail.com
