MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAAKRu_ZMw6Npd_qm2KM+FwQ3cMOMx1Dh3VMhp8-V7SOLxdK9-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAKRu_YXP1Us41fkZJeBK5SSj5whNC0C9fZNT6Brdtm+F0agpg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAKRu_bAR5uCfjuc06vc_xrZjNCJLs493NgHjTOUDso9qGdE0w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAKRu_ac4vUdU-U3ax8j=N8y2OM9-pbFZhafLVfzDOM8MtzvvA@mail.gmail.com>
 <BD5C3345-42F2-4870-89B2-FD8875301714@yandex-team.ru>
 <CAAKRu_a-aVGxNEdkJt+96HGryQXuQNuXe+PhR0KcnUhXSOPBJw@mail.gmail.com>
 <87DD95AA-274F-4F4F-BAD9-7738E5B1F905@yandex-team.ru>
 <CAAKRu_ZH8kL0Zm0j7m7DC9fzk7ru7yf9rm2pEQRvx1iXX25aPQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAKRu_bGCgUuhmy1Mzkw3yCmbGcjNQAjV=OmjuW6hz90PuXKWA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALdSSPhvV8mf36+8SVKviJA3SkzzP1iJ09T23Pk8EYNZHEt3xA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CALdSSPhvV8mf36+8SVKviJA3SkzzP1iJ09T23Pk8EYNZHEt3xA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2025 09:08:28 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAAKRu_bEPpqidbdoa4kuNx-jydzzYpja=ZESQC3T1jD3fwKjTw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: eliminate xl_heap_visible to reduce WAL (and eventually set VM
 on-access)
To: Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrey Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
 Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>,
	Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAAKRu_bEPpqidbdoa4kuNx-jydzzYpja%3DZESQC3T1jD3fwKjTw%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Thanks for all the reviews. I'm working on responding to your previous
mails with a new version.

On Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 8:55=E2=80=AFAM Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill@gmail.c=
om> wrote:
>
> v6-0015:
> I chose to verify whether this single modification would be beneficial
> on the HEAD.
>
> Benchmark I did:
>
> ```
>
> \timing
> CREATE TABLE zz(i int);
> alter table zz set (autovacuum_enabled =3D false);
> TRUNCATE zz;
> copy zz from program 'yes 2 | head -n 180000000';
> copy zz from program 'yes 2 | head -n 180000000';
>
> delete from zz where (REPLACE(REPLACE(ctid::text, '(', '{'), ')',
> '}')::int[])[2] =3D 7 ;
>
> VACUUM FREEZE zz;
> ```
>
> And I checked perf top footprint for last statement (vacuum).  My
> detailed results are attached. It is a HEAD vs HEAD+v6-0015 benchmark.
>
> TLDR: function inlining is indeed beneficial, TransactionIdPrecedes
> function disappears from perf top footprint, though query runtime is
> not changed much. So, while not resulting in query speedup, this can
> save CPU.
> Maybe we can derive an artificial benchmark, which will show query
> speed up, but for now I dont have one.

I'm not surprised that vacuum freeze does not show a speed up from the
function inlining.

This patch was key for avoiding a regression in the most contrived
worst case scenario example of setting the VM on-access. That is, if
you are pruning only a single tuple on the page as part of a SELECT
query that returns no tuples (think SELECT * FROM foo OFFSET N where N
is greater than the number of rows in the table), and I add
determining if the page is all visible, then the overhead of these
extra function calls in heap_prune_record_unchanged_lp_normal() is
noticeable.

We might be able to come up with a similar example in vacuum without
freeze since it will try to determine if the page is all-visible. Your
example is still running on my machine, though, so I haven't verified
this yet :)

- Melanie