Re: SAVEPOINTs and COMMIT performance

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: SAVEPOINTs and COMMIT performance
Date: 2011-02-06 21:09:30
Message-ID: 1297026570.1770.2730.camel@ebony
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, 2011-02-06 at 12:11 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Did this ever get addressed?

Patch attached.

Seems like the easiest fix I can come up with.

> Simon Riggs wrote:
> >
> > As part of a performance investigation for a customer I've noticed an
> > O(N^2) performance issue on COMMITs of transactions that contain many
> > SAVEPOINTs. I've consistently measured COMMIT times of around 9 seconds,
> > with 49% CPU, mostly in LockReassignCurrentOwner().
> >
> > BEGIN;
> > INSERT...
> > SAVEPOINT ...
> > INSERT...
> > SAVEPOINT ...
> > ... (repeat 10,000 times)
> > COMMIT;
> >
> > The way SAVEPOINTs work is that each is nested within the previous one,
> > so that at COMMIT time we must recursively commit all the
> > subtransactions before we issue final commit.
> >
> > That's a shame because ResourceOwnerReleaseInternal() contains an
> > optimisation to speed up final commit, by calling ProcReleaseLocks().
> >
> > What we actually do is recursively call LockReassignCurrentOwner() which
> > sequentially scans LockMethodLocalHash at each level of transaction. The
> > comments refer to this as "retail" rather than the wholesale method,
> > which never gets to execute anything worthwhile in this case.
> >
> > This issue does NOT occur in PLpgSQL functions that contain many
> > EXCEPTION clauses in a loop, since in that case the subtransactions are
> > started and committed from the top level so that the subxact nesting
> > never goes too deep.
> >
> > Fix looks like we need special handling for the depth-first case, rather
> > than just a recursion loop in CommitTransactionCommand().
> >
> > Issues looks like it goes all the way back, no fix for 9.0.
> >
> > I notice also that the nesting model of SAVEPOINTs also means that
> > read-only subtransactions will still generate an xid when followed by a
> > DML statement. That's unnecessary, but required given current design.
> >
> > --
> > Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
> > PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
> >
> >
> > --
> > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> > To make changes to your subscription:
> > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>

--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services

Attachment Content-Type Size
savepoint_commit_performance.v1.patch text/x-patch 2.6 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Radosław Smogura 2011-02-06 21:20:41 Varlena and binary
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2011-02-06 19:59:01 Re: SSI patch version 14