Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

WAL log performance/efficiency question

From: Keaton Adams <kadams(at)mxlogic(dot)com>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: WAL log performance/efficiency question
Date: 2007-05-17 14:04:30
Message-ID: 1179410671.26604.3.camel@MXLRMT-208.corp.mxlogic.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
I sent this to pgsql-admin but didn't receive a response.  Would this be
a WAL log performance/efficiency issue?

Thanks,

Keaton


Given these postgresql.conf settings:

#---------------------------------------------------------------------------
# WRITE AHEAD LOG
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------

# - Settings -

fsync = on                              # turns forced synchronization
on or off
wal_sync_method = fsync                 # the default is the first
option
                                        # supported by the operating
system:
                                        #   open_datasync
                                        #   fdatasync
                                        #   fsync
                                        #   fsync_writethrough
                                        #   open_sync
full_page_writes = on                   # recover from partial page
writes
wal_buffers = 32                        # min 4, 8KB each
commit_delay = 100000                   # range 0-100000, in
microseconds
commit_siblings = 1000                  # range 1-1000

# - Checkpoints -

checkpoint_segments = 500       # in logfile segments, min 1, 16MB each
checkpoint_timeout = 300        # range 30-3600, in seconds
checkpoint_warning = 120        # in seconds, 0 is off

# - Archiving -
archive_command = '/mnt/logship/scripts/archivemaster.sh %p %f'
# command to use to archive a logfile
# segment



And these tables to load data into:

           List of relations
Schema |   Name    | Type  |  Owner   
--------+-----------+-------+----------
public | testload  | table | postgres
public | testload2 | table | postgres
public | testload3 | table | postgres
(3 rows)

postgres=# \d testload
       Table "public.testload"
Column |      Type      | Modifiers 
--------+----------------+-----------
name   | character(100) | 

postgres=# \d testload2
      Table "public.testload2"
Column |      Type      | Modifiers 
--------+----------------+-----------
name   | character(100) | 

postgres=# \d testload3
      Table "public.testload3"
Column |      Type      | Modifiers 
--------+----------------+-----------
name   | character(100) | 

There are no indexes on the tables.


Using an 8K data page:

8K data page (8192 bytes)
Less page header and row overhead leaves ~8000 bytes
At 100 bytes per row = ~80 rows/page
Rows loaded: 250,000 / 80 = 3125 data pages * 8192 = 25,600,000 bytes /
1048576 = ~ 24.4 MB of data page space.

The test file is shown here (250,000 rows all the same):
-bash-3.1$ more datafile.txt
AAAAAAAAAABBBBBBBBBBCCCCCCCCCCDDDDDDDDDDEEEEEEEEEEFFFFFFFFFFGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHIIIIIIIIIIJJJJJJJJJJ
AAAAAAAAAABBBBBBBBBBCCCCCCCCCCDDDDDDDDDDEEEEEEEEEEFFFFFFFFFFGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHIIIIIIIIIIJJJJJJJJJJ
AAAAAAAAAABBBBBBBBBBCCCCCCCCCCDDDDDDDDDDEEEEEEEEEEFFFFFFFFFFGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHIIIIIIIIIIJJJJJJJJJJ

The load script:
-bash-3.1$ more loaddata.sql
copy testload from '/home/kadams/logship/datafile.txt' delimiter '|';
copy testload2 from '/home/kadams/logship/datafile.txt' delimiter '|';
copy testload3 from '/home/kadams/logship/datafile.txt' delimiter '|';

So the one load process does a COPY into the three tables.  24.4 MB * 3
tables = ~ 73.2 MB of data page space.

This is the only process running on the database.  No other loads/users
are on the system.

psql -f sql/loaddata.sql  >/dev/null 2>&1 &

It seems that 112 MB of WAL file space (16 MB * 7) is required for 73.2
MB of loaded data, which is an extra 34.8% of disk space to log/archive
the COPY commands:

First pass:
LOG:  transaction ID wrap limit is 2147484146, limited by database
"postgres"
LOG:  archived transaction log file "00000001000000010000005E"
LOG:  archived transaction log file "00000001000000010000005F"
LOG:  archived transaction log file "000000010000000100000060"
LOG:  archived transaction log file "000000010000000100000061"
LOG:  archived transaction log file "000000010000000100000062"
LOG:  archived transaction log file "000000010000000100000063"
LOG:  archived transaction log file "000000010000000100000064"

# of logs in pg_xlog: 9

Second pass:
LOG:  archived transaction log file "000000010000000100000065"
LOG:  archived transaction log file "000000010000000100000066"
LOG:  archived transaction log file "000000010000000100000067"
LOG:  archived transaction log file "000000010000000100000068"
LOG:  archived transaction log file "000000010000000100000069"
LOG:  archived transaction log file "00000001000000010000006A"
LOG:  archived transaction log file "00000001000000010000006B"

# of logs in pg_xlog: 15

Third pass:
LOG:  archived transaction log file "00000001000000010000006C"
LOG:  archived transaction log file "00000001000000010000006D"
LOG:  archived transaction log file "00000001000000010000006E"
LOG:  archived transaction log file "00000001000000010000006F"
LOG:  archived transaction log file "000000010000000100000070"
LOG:  archived transaction log file "000000010000000100000071"
LOG:  archived transaction log file "000000010000000100000072"

# of logs in pg_xlog: 22

Fourth pass:
LOG:  archived transaction log file "000000010000000100000073"
LOG:  archived transaction log file "000000010000000100000074"
LOG:  archived transaction log file "000000010000000100000075"
LOG:  archived transaction log file "000000010000000100000076"
LOG:  archived transaction log file "000000010000000100000077"
LOG:  archived transaction log file "000000010000000100000078"
LOG:  archived transaction log file "000000010000000100000079"

# of logs in pg_xlog: 29

PostgreSQL continued to add log files in pg_xlog, so my assumption is
that checkpoints did not come into play during the load process,
correct? (Frequent checkpoints would have added even more to the WAL
file overhead, is my understanding.)

So is there anything I can do to reduce the 34.8% overhead in WAL file
space when loading data? Do you see any glaring mistakes in the
calculations themselves, and would you agree with this overhead figure?

We are running on PostgreSQL 8.1.4 and are planning to move to 8.3 when
it becomes available.  Are there space utilization/performance
improvements in WAL logging in the upcoming release?

Thanks,

Keaton

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Heikki LinnakangasDate: 2007-05-17 14:23:00
Subject: Re: WAL log performance/efficiency question
Previous:From: Andrew SullivanDate: 2007-05-17 13:55:30
Subject: Re: Background vacuum

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group