Is it worth to optimize VACUUM/ANALYZE by combining duplicate rel instances into single rel instance?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Is it worth to optimize VACUUM/ANALYZE by combining duplicate rel instances into single rel instance?

Bharath Rupireddy
Hi,

I'm reading the code for vacuum/analyze and it looks like currently we
call vacuum_rel/analyze_rel for each relation specified. Which means
that if a relation is specified more than once, then we simply
vacuum/analyze it that many times. Do we gain any advantage by
vacuuming/analyzing a relation back-to-back within a single command? I
strongly feel no. I'm thinking we could do a simple optimization here,
by transforming following VACUUM/ANALYZE commands to:
1) VACUUM t1, t2, t1, t2, t1;                     transform to -->
VACUUM t1, t2;
2) VACUUM ANALYZE t1(a1), t2(a2), t1(b1), t2(b2), t1(c1);
transform to --> VACUUM ANALYZE t1(a1, b1, c1), t2(a2, b2)
3) ANALYZE t1, t2, t1, t2, t1;                     transform to -->
ANALYZE t1, t2;
4) ANALYZE t1(a1), t2(a2), t1(b1), t2(b2), t1(c1);
transform to --> ANALYZE t1(a1, b1, c1), t2(a2, b2)

Above use cases may look pretty much unsound and we could think of
disallowing with an error for the use cases (1) and 3(), but the use
cases (2) and (4) are quite possible in customer scenarios(??). Please
feel free to add any other use cases you may think of.

The main advantage of the above said optimization is that the commands
can become a bit faster because we will avoid extra processing. I
would like to hear opinions on this. I'm not sure if this optimization
was already given a thought and not done because of some specific
reasons. If so, it will be great if someone can point me to those
discussions. Or it could be that I'm badly missing in my understanding
of current vacuum/analyze code, feel free to correct me.

With Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is it worth to optimize VACUUM/ANALYZE by combining duplicate rel instances into single rel instance?

Tom Lane-2
Bharath Rupireddy <[hidden email]> writes:
> I'm reading the code for vacuum/analyze and it looks like currently we
> call vacuum_rel/analyze_rel for each relation specified. Which means
> that if a relation is specified more than once, then we simply
> vacuum/analyze it that many times. Do we gain any advantage by
> vacuuming/analyzing a relation back-to-back within a single command? I
> strongly feel no. I'm thinking we could do a simple optimization here,

This really is not something to expend cycles and code complexity on.
If the user wrote the same table more than once, that's their choice.

                        regards, tom lane


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is it worth to optimize VACUUM/ANALYZE by combining duplicate rel instances into single rel instance?

Bharath Rupireddy
On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 8:03 PM Tom Lane <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Bharath Rupireddy <[hidden email]> writes:
> > I'm reading the code for vacuum/analyze and it looks like currently we
> > call vacuum_rel/analyze_rel for each relation specified. Which means
> > that if a relation is specified more than once, then we simply
> > vacuum/analyze it that many times. Do we gain any advantage by
> > vacuuming/analyzing a relation back-to-back within a single command? I
> > strongly feel no. I'm thinking we could do a simple optimization here,
>
> This really is not something to expend cycles and code complexity on.
> If the user wrote the same table more than once, that's their choice.
Thanks! I think we could avoid extra processing costs for cases like
VACUUM/ANALYZE foo, foo; when no explicit columns are specified. The
avoided costs can be lock acquire, relation open, vacuum/analyze,
relation close, starting new xact command, command counter increment
in case of analyze etc. This can be done with a simple patch like the
attached. When explicit columns are specified along with relations
i.e. VACUUM/ANALYZE foo(c1), foo(c2); we don't want to do the extra
complex processing to optimize the cases when c1 = c2.

Note that the TRUNCATE command currently skips processing repeated
relations (see ExecuteTruncate). For example, TRUNCATE foo, foo; and
TRUNCATE foo, ONLY foo, foo; first instance of relation foo is taken
into consideration for processing and other relation instances
(options specified if any) are ignored.

Thoughts?

With Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

v1-0001-Skip-VACUUM-ANALYZE-of-repeated-relations.patch (4K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is it worth to optimize VACUUM/ANALYZE by combining duplicate rel instances into single rel instance?

Kyotaro Horiguchi-4
At Wed, 21 Apr 2021 07:34:40 +0530, Bharath Rupireddy <[hidden email]> wrote in

> On Sat, Apr 10, 2021 at 8:03 PM Tom Lane <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> > Bharath Rupireddy <[hidden email]> writes:
> > > I'm reading the code for vacuum/analyze and it looks like currently we
> > > call vacuum_rel/analyze_rel for each relation specified. Which means
> > > that if a relation is specified more than once, then we simply
> > > vacuum/analyze it that many times. Do we gain any advantage by
> > > vacuuming/analyzing a relation back-to-back within a single command? I
> > > strongly feel no. I'm thinking we could do a simple optimization here,
> >
> > This really is not something to expend cycles and code complexity on.
> > If the user wrote the same table more than once, that's their choice.
>
> Thanks! I think we could avoid extra processing costs for cases like
> VACUUM/ANALYZE foo, foo; when no explicit columns are specified. The
> avoided costs can be lock acquire, relation open, vacuum/analyze,
> relation close, starting new xact command, command counter increment
> in case of analyze etc. This can be done with a simple patch like the
> attached. When explicit columns are specified along with relations
> i.e. VACUUM/ANALYZE foo(c1), foo(c2); we don't want to do the extra
> complex processing to optimize the cases when c1 = c2.
>
> Note that the TRUNCATE command currently skips processing repeated
> relations (see ExecuteTruncate). For example, TRUNCATE foo, foo; and
> TRUNCATE foo, ONLY foo, foo; first instance of relation foo is taken
> into consideration for processing and other relation instances
> (options specified if any) are ignored.
>
> Thoughts?

Although I don't strongly oppose to check that, the check of truncate
is natural and required. The relation list is anyway used afterwards,
and we cannot truncate the same relation twice or more since a
relation under "use" cannot be truncated. (Truncation is one form of
use).  In short, TRUNCATE runs no checking just for the check's own
sake.

On the other hand the patch creates a relation list just for this
purpose, which is not needed to run VACUUM/ANALYZE, and VACUUM/ANALYE
works well with duplicates in target relations.

regards.

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is it worth to optimize VACUUM/ANALYZE by combining duplicate rel instances into single rel instance?

Michael Paquier-2
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 11:32:49AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> On the other hand the patch creates a relation list just for this
> purpose, which is not needed to run VACUUM/ANALYZE, and VACUUM/ANALYE
> works well with duplicates in target relations.

Yeah, I don't think either that this is worth spending cycles on, not
to mention that the current behavior could be handy as VACUUM uses
separate transactions for each relation vacuumed if more than one
relation is listed in the set.
--
Michael

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Is it worth to optimize VACUUM/ANALYZE by combining duplicate rel instances into single rel instance?

Bharath Rupireddy
In reply to this post by Kyotaro Horiguchi-4
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 8:02 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> > Thanks! I think we could avoid extra processing costs for cases like
> > VACUUM/ANALYZE foo, foo; when no explicit columns are specified. The
> > avoided costs can be lock acquire, relation open, vacuum/analyze,
> > relation close, starting new xact command, command counter increment
> > in case of analyze etc. This can be done with a simple patch like the
> > attached. When explicit columns are specified along with relations
> > i.e. VACUUM/ANALYZE foo(c1), foo(c2); we don't want to do the extra
> > complex processing to optimize the cases when c1 = c2.
> >
> > Note that the TRUNCATE command currently skips processing repeated
> > relations (see ExecuteTruncate). For example, TRUNCATE foo, foo; and
> > TRUNCATE foo, ONLY foo, foo; first instance of relation foo is taken
> > into consideration for processing and other relation instances
> > (options specified if any) are ignored.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> Although I don't strongly oppose to check that, the check of truncate
> is natural and required. The relation list is anyway used afterwards,
> and we cannot truncate the same relation twice or more since a
> relation under "use" cannot be truncated. (Truncation is one form of
> use).  In short, TRUNCATE runs no checking just for the check's own
> sake.

Thanks for the point. Yes, if we don't skip repeated instances we do
get below error:
postgres=# truncate t1, t1;
ERROR:  cannot TRUNCATE "t1" because it is being used by active
queries in this session

> On the other hand the patch creates a relation list just for this
> purpose, which is not needed to run VACUUM/ANALYZE, and VACUUM/ANALYE
> works well with duplicates in target relations.

Yeah, the relids list is only used to skip the duplicates. I feel
that's okay given the negligible extra processing (searching for the
relids in the list) we add with it versus the extra processing we
avoid with skipping duplicates, see [1].

Although VACUUM/ANALYZE works well with duplicate relations without
any error (unlike TRUNCATE), is there any benefit if we run
back-to-back VACUUM/ANALYZE within a single command? I assume that
there's no benefit. My only point was that even if somebody specifies
duplicate relations, we could avoid some processing effort see [1] for
the gain. For ANALYZE, we can avoid doing extra
StartTransactionCommand, CommitTransactionCommand and
CommandCounterIncrement as well.

I know the use cases that I'm trying to optimize with the patch are
worthless and unrealistic (may be written by someone like me). Since
we generally don't optimize for rare and unrecommended scenarios, I'm
okay if we drop this patch. But I would like to mention [1] the gain
we get with the patch.

[1] tested on my dev system, with default postgresql.conf, t1 is
having 10mn rows:
HEAD:
postgres=# analyze t1;
Time: 363.580 ms
postgres=# analyze t1;
Time: 384.760 ms

postgres=# analyze t1, t1;
Time: 687.976 ms
postgres=# analyze t1, t1;
Time: 664.420 ms

postgres=# analyze t1, t1, t1;
Time: 1010.855 ms (00:01.011)
postgres=# analyze t1, t1, t1;
Time: 1119.970 ms (00:01.120)

postgres=# analyze t1, t1, t1, t1;
Time: 1350.345 ms (00:01.350)
postgres=# analyze t1, t1, t1, t1;
Time: 1316.738 ms (00:01.317)

postgres=# analyze t1, t1, t1, t1, t1;
Time: 1651.780 ms (00:01.652)
postgres=# analyze t1, t1, t1, t1, t1, t1;
Time: 1983.163 ms (00:01.983)

PATCHed:
postgres=# analyze t1;
Time: 356.709 ms
postgres=# analyze t1;
Time: 360.780 ms

postgres=# analyze t1, t1;
Time: 377.193 ms
postgres=# analyze t1, t1;
Time: 370.636 ms

postgres=# analyze t1, t1, t1;
Time: 364.271 ms
postgres=# analyze t1, t1, t1;
Time: 349.988 ms

postgres=# analyze t1, t1, t1, t1;
Time: 362.567 ms
postgres=# analyze t1, t1, t1, t1;
Time: 383.292 ms

With Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com