Use SnapshotDirty rather than an active snapshot to probe index endpoints.
If there are lots of uncommitted tuples at the end of the index range, get_actual_variable_range() ends up fetching each one and doing an MVCC visibility check on it, until it finally hits a visible tuple. This is bad enough in isolation, considering that we don't need an exact answer only an approximate one. But because the tuples are not yet committed, each visibility check does a TransactionIdIsInProgress() test, which involves scanning the ProcArray. When multiple sessions do this concurrently, the ensuing contention results in horrid performance loss. 20X overall throughput loss on not-too-complicated queries is easy to demonstrate in the back branches (though someone's made it noticeably less bad in HEAD). We can dodge the problem fairly effectively by using SnapshotDirty rather than a normal MVCC snapshot. This will cause the index probe to take uncommitted tuples as good, so that we incur only one tuple fetch and test even if there are many such tuples. The extent to which this degrades the estimate is debatable: it's possible the result is actually a more accurate prediction than before, if the endmost tuple has become committed by the time we actually execute the query being planned. In any case, it's not very likely that it makes the estimate a lot worse. SnapshotDirty will still reject tuples that are known committed dead, so we won't give bogus answers if an invalid outlier has been deleted but not yet vacuumed from the index. (Because btrees know how to mark such tuples dead in the index, we shouldn't have a big performance problem in the case that there are many of them at the end of the range.) This consideration motivates not using SnapshotAny, which was also considered as a fix. Note: the back branches were using SnapshotNow instead of an MVCC snapshot, but the problem and solution are the same. Per performance complaints from Bartlomiej Romanski, Josh Berkus, and others. Back-patch to 9.0, where the issue was introduced (by commit 40608e7f).
Showing
Please register or sign in to comment