| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Plus a similar fix to the README.
Backpatch as far back as the sgml issue exists. The README issue does
exist in v14, but that seems unlikely to harm anyone.
Author: David Geier <geidav.pg@gmail.com>
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/ed3db7ea-55b4-4809-86af-81ad3bb2c7d3@gmail.com
Backpatch-through: 15
|
|
Author: Peter Smith
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAHut+Pu-V22PiJF2ym9_NVZe-+qnycfyEX24dZm=7URWhDHJ3w@mail.gmail.com
|
|
Dilip Kumar
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFiTN-tjZbuY6vy7kZZ6xO%2BD4mVcO5wOPB5KiwJ3AHhpytd8fg%40mail.gmail.com
|
|
|
|
Reported-by: Thomas Munro, Justin Pryzby
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/CAEepm=1_682z-09DNHj4GkCJAqWK-D6h9Oq5ea84T1oqq1-Utg@mail.gmail.com
|
|
You might think I (Robert) could manage to count to five without
messing it up, but if you did, you would be wrong.
Amit Kapila
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1JxqqcuC5Un7YLQVhOYSZBS+t=3xqZuEkt5RyquyuxpwQ@mail.gmail.com
|
|
Commit 09cb5c0e7d6fbc9dee26dc429e4fc0f2a88e5272 added a similar
optimization to btree back in 2006, but nobody bothered to implement
the same thing for hash indexes, probably because they weren't
WAL-logged and had lots of other performance problems as well. As
with the corresponding btree case, this eliminates the problem of
potentially needing to refind our position within the page, and cuts
down on pin/unpin traffic as well.
Ashutosh Sharma, reviewed by Alexander Korotkov, Jesper Pedersen,
Amit Kapila, and me. Some final edits to comments and README by
me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAE9k0Pm3KTx93K8_5j6VMzG4h5F+SyknxUwXrN-zqSZ9X8ZS3w@mail.gmail.com
|
|
Since hash indexes typically have very few overflow pages, adding a
new splitpoint essentially doubles the on-disk size of the index,
which can lead to large and abrupt increases in disk usage (and
perhaps long delays on occasion). To mitigate this problem to some
degree, divide larger splitpoints into four equal phases. This means
that, for example, instead of growing from 4GB to 8GB all at once, a
hash index will now grow from 4GB to 5GB to 6GB to 7GB to 8GB, which
is perhaps still not as smooth as we'd like but certainly an
improvement.
This changes the on-disk format of the metapage, so bump HASH_VERSION
from 2 to 3. This will force a REINDEX of all existing hash indexes,
but that's probably a good idea anyway. First, hash indexes from
pre-10 versions of PostgreSQL could easily be corrupted, and we don't
want to confuse corruption carried over from an older release with any
corruption caused despite the new write-ahead logging in v10. Second,
it will let us remove some backward-compatibility code added by commit
293e24e507838733aba4748b514536af2d39d7f2.
Mithun Cy, reviewed by Amit Kapila, Jesper Pedersen and me. Regression
test outputs updated by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAD__OuhG6F1gQLCgMQNnMNgoCvOLQZz9zKYJQNYvYmmJoM42gA@mail.gmail.com
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CA+TgmoYty0jCf-pa+m+vYUJ716+AxM7nv_syvyanyf5O-L_i2A@mail.gmail.com
|
|
This is advantageous for hash indexes for the same reasons it's good
for btrees: it accelerates space recycling, reducing bloat.
Ashutosh Sharma, reviewed by Amit Kapila and by me. A bit of
additional hacking by me.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAE9k0PkRSyzx8dOnokEpUi2A-RFZK72WN0h9DEMv_ut9q6bPRw@mail.gmail.com
|
|
Amit Kapila. One of these was reported by Tom Lane.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/5515.1489514099@sss.pgh.pa.us
|
|
The warning about hash indexes not being write-ahead logged and their
use being discouraged has been removed. "snapshot too old" is now
supported for tables with hash indexes. Most importantly, barring
bugs, hash indexes will now be crash-safe and usable on standbys.
This commit doesn't yet add WAL consistency checking for hash
indexes, as we now have for other index types; a separate patch has
been submitted to cure that lack.
Amit Kapila, reviewed and slightly modified by me. The larger patch
series of which this is a part has been reviewed and tested by Álvaro
Herrera, Ashutosh Sharma, Mark Kirkwood, Jeff Janes, and Jesper
Pedersen.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1JOBX=YU33631Qh-XivYXtPSALh514+jR8XeD7v+K3r_Q@mail.gmail.com
|
|
This avoids a very significant amount of buffer manager traffic and
contention when scanning hash indexes, because it's no longer
necessary to lock and pin the metapage for every scan. We do need
some way of figuring out when the cache is too stale to use any more,
so that when we lock the primary bucket page to which the cached
metapage points us, we can tell whether a split has occurred since we
cached the metapage data. To do that, we use the hash_prevblkno field
in the primary bucket page, which would otherwise always be set to
InvalidBuffer.
This patch contains code so that it will continue working (although
less efficiently) with hash indexes built before this change, but
perhaps we should consider bumping the hash version and ripping out
the compatibility code. That decision can be made later, though.
Mithun Cy, reviewed by Jesper Pedersen, Amit Kapila, and by me.
Before committing, I made a number of cosmetic changes to the last
posted version of the patch, adjusted _hash_getcachedmetap to be more
careful about order of operation, and made some necessary updates to
the pageinspect documentation and regression tests.
|
|
Previously, the right to split a bucket was represented by a
heavyweight lock on the page number of the primary bucket page.
Unfortunately, this meant that every scan needed to take a heavyweight
lock on that bucket also, which was bad for concurrency. Instead, use
a cleanup lock on the primary bucket page to indicate the right to
begin a split, so that scans only need to retain a pin on that page,
which is they would have to acquire anyway, and which is also much
cheaper.
In addition to reducing the locking cost, this also avoids locking out
scans and inserts for the entire lifetime of the split: while the new
bucket is being populated with copies of the appropriate tuples from
the old bucket, scans and inserts can happen in parallel. There are
minor concurrency improvements for vacuum operations as well, though
the situation there is still far from ideal.
This patch also removes the unworldly assumption that a split will
never be interrupted. With the new code, a split is done in a series
of small steps and the system can pick up where it left off if it is
interrupted prior to completion. While this patch does not itself add
write-ahead logging for hash indexes, it is clearly a necessary first
step, since one of the things that could interrupt a split is the
removal of electrical power from the machine performing it.
Amit Kapila. I wrote the original design on which this patch is
based, and did a good bit of work on the comments and README through
multiple rounds of review, but all of the code is Amit's. Also
reviewed by Jesper Pedersen, Jeff Janes, and others.
Discussion: http://postgr.es/m/CAA4eK1LfzcZYxLoXS874Ad0+S-ZM60U9bwcyiUZx9mHZ-KCWhw@mail.gmail.com
|
|
A few more minor spelling corrections, no functional changes.
Thom Brown
|
|
Avoid using LockPage(rel, 0, lockmode) to protect against changes to
the bucket mapping. Instead, an exclusive buffer content lock is now
viewed as sufficient permission to modify the metapage, and a shared
buffer content lock is used when such modifications need to be
prevented. This more relaxed locking regimen makes it possible that,
when we're busy getting a heavyweight bucket on the bucket we intend
to search or insert into, a bucket split might occur underneath us.
To compenate for that possibility, we use a loop-and-retry system:
release the metapage content lock, acquire the heavyweight lock on the
target bucket, and then reacquire the metapage content lock and check
that the bucket mapping has not changed. Normally it hasn't, and
we're done. But if by chance it has, we simply unlock the metapage,
release the heavyweight lock we acquired previously, lock the new
bucket, and loop around again. Even in the worst case we cannot loop
very many times here, since we don't split the same bucket again until
we've split all the other buckets, and 2^N gets big pretty fast.
This results in greatly improved concurrency, because we're
effectively replacing two lwlock acquire-and-release cycles in
exclusive mode (on one of the lock manager locks) with a single
acquire-and-release cycle in shared mode (on the metapage buffer
content lock). Testing shows that it's still not quite as good as
btree; for that, we'd probably have to find some way of getting rid
of the heavyweight bucket locks as well, which does not appear
straightforward.
Patch by me, review by Jeff Janes.
|
|
|
|
hash indexes keep entries sorted by hash value. First, the original plans for
concurrency assumed that insertions would happen only at the end of a page,
which is no longer true; this could cause scans to transiently fail to find
index entries in the presence of concurrent insertions. We can compensate
by teaching scans to re-find their position after re-acquiring read locks.
Second, neither the bucket split nor the bucket compaction logic had been
fixed to preserve hashvalue ordering, so application of either of those
processes could lead to permanent corruption of an index, in the sense
that searches might fail to find entries that are present.
This patch fixes the split and compaction logic to preserve hashvalue
ordering, but it cannot do anything about pre-existing corruption. We will
need to recommend reindexing all hash indexes in the 8.4.2 release notes.
To buy back the performance loss hereby induced in split and compaction,
fix them to use PageIndexMultiDelete instead of retail PageIndexDelete
operations. We might later want to do something with qsort'ing the
page contents rather than doing a binary search for each insertion,
but that seemed more invasive than I cared to risk in a back-patch.
Per bug #5157 from Jeff Janes and subsequent investigation.
|
|
|
|
two buckets at the start, we create a number of buckets appropriate for the
estimated size of the table. This avoids a lot of expensive bucket-split
actions during initial index build on an already-populated table.
This is one of the two core ideas of Tom Raney and Shreya Bhargava's patch
to reduce hash index build time. I'm committing it separately to make it
easier for people to test the effects of this separately from the effects
of their other core idea (pre-sorting the index entries by bucket number).
|
|
failed (due to lock conflicts or out-of-space). We might have already
extended the index's filesystem EOF before failing, causing the EOF to be
beyond what the metapage says is the last used page. Hence the invariant
maintained by the code needs to be "EOF is at or beyond last used page",
not "EOF is exactly the last used page". Problem was created by my patch
of 2006-11-19 that attempted to repair bug #2737. Since that was
back-patched to 7.4, this needs to be as well. Per report and test case
from Vlastimil Krejcir.
|
|
management. The paper clearly describes many of the ideas embodied in
our current hashing code, but as far as I could find out there is not
a direct code heritage. (Mike Olsen recalls discussion of this paper
at Postgres meetings but believes it "informed the Postgres implementation
probably just at the design level". Margo herself says she wasn't
involved with Postgres' hash code.) Credit where credit is due 'n all
that, even if fifteen years after the fact.
|
|
|
|
pghackers. This fixes the problem recently reported by Markus KrÌutner
(hash bucket split corrupts the state of scans being done concurrently),
and I believe it also fixes all the known problems with deadlocks in
hash index operations. Hash indexes are still not really ready for prime
time (since they aren't WAL-logged), but this is a step forward.
|
|
|
|
explanation of the remarkably confusing page addressing scheme.
The file also includes my planned-but-not-yet-implemented revision
of the hash index locking scheme.
|
