On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Tomas Vondra
<tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 09/17/2016 05:23 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> The difference between these and tests performed by Dilip is that he
>> has lesser savepoints. I think if you want to try it again, then can
>> you once do it with either no savepoint or 1~2 savepoints. The other
>> thing you could try out is the same test as Dilip has done (with and
>> without 2 savepoints).
>>
>
> I don't follow. My understanding is the patches should make savepoints
> cheaper - so why would using fewer savepoints increase the effect of the
> patches?
>
Oh, no the purpose of the patch is not to make savepoints cheaper (I
know I have earlier suggested to check by having few savepoints, but
that was not intended to mean that this patch makes savepoint cheaper,
rather it might show the difference between different approaches,
sorry if that was not clearly stated earlier). The purpose of this
patch('es) is to make commits cheaper and in particular updating the
status in CLOG. Let me try to explain in brief about the CLOG
contention and what these patches try to accomplish. As of head, when
we try to update the status in CLOG (TransactionIdSetPageStatus), we
take CLOGControlLock in EXCLUSIVE mode for reading the appropriate
CLOG page (most of the time, it will be in memory, so it is cheap) and
then updating the transaction status in the same. We take
CLOGControlLock in SHARED mode (if we the required clog page is in
memory, otherwise the lock is upgraded to Exclusive) while reading the
transaction status which happen when we access the tuple where hint
bit is not set.
So, we have two different type of contention around CLOGControlLock,
(a) all the transactions that try to commit at same time, each of them
have to do it almost serially (b) readers of transaction status
contend with writers.
Now with the patch that went in 9.6 (increasing the clog buffers), the
second type of contention is mostly reduced as most of the required
pages are in-memory and we are hoping that this patch will help in
reducing first type (a) of contention as well.
>>
>
> I'm OK with running Dilip's tests, but I'm not sure why there's not much
> point in running the tests I've done. Or perhaps I'd like to understand why
> "my tests" show no improvement whatsoever first - after all, they're not
> that different from Dilip's.
>
The test which Dilip is doing "Select ... For Update" is mainly aiming
at first type (a) of contention as it doesn't change the hint bits, so
mostly it should not go for reading the transaction status when
accessing the tuple. Whereas, the tests you are doing is mainly
focussed on second type (b) of contention.
I think one point we have to keep in mind here is that this contention
is visible in bigger socket m/c, last time Jesper also tried these
patches, but didn't find much difference in his environment and on
further analyzing (IIRC) we found that the reason was that contention
was not visible in his environment.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
