public inbox for [email protected]help / color / mirror / Atom feed
Suggestion for memory parameters 3+ messages / 2 participants [nested] [flat]
* Suggestion for memory parameters @ 2024-09-26 11:03 yudhi s <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: yudhi s @ 2024-09-26 11:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: pgsql-general <[email protected]> Hello All, In a RDS postgres we are seeing some select queries when running and doing sorting on 50 million rows(as its having order by clause in it) , the significant portion of wait event is showing as "IO:BufFileWrite" and it runs for ~20minutes+. Going through the document in the link below, it states we should monitor the "FreeLocalStorage" metric and when monitoring that, I see it showing up to ~535GB as the max limit and when these queries run this goes down till 100GB. Note- (it's a R7g8xl instance) https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/AuroraUserGuide/apg-waits.iobuffile.html We were thinking of bumping up the work_mem to a higher value in database level , which is currently having size 4MB default. But we will also have ~100 sessions running at same time and majority were from other applications which execute other single row "insert" queries and I hope that will not need high "work_mem" . And setting it at database level will consume 100 times that set work_mem value. So how to handle this situation? Or Is it fine to let it use "FreeLocalStorage" unless it goes till zero? Also I am confused between the local storage (which is showing as 535GB) vs the memory/RAM which is 256GB for this instance class with ~128TB max storage space restriction, how are these storage different, (mainly the 535GB space which it's showing vs the 128TB storage space restriction)? Appreciate your guidance. select query looks something as below with no Joins but just single table fetch:- Select.... from <table_name> where order by column1, column2 LIMIT $b1 OFFSET $B2 ; Regards Yudhi ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Suggestion for memory parameters @ 2024-09-30 15:16 Philip Semanchuk <[email protected]> parent: yudhi s <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread From: Philip Semanchuk @ 2024-09-30 15:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: yudhi s <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-general <[email protected]> > On Sep 26, 2024, at 7:03 AM, yudhi s <[email protected]> wrote: > > In a RDS postgres ... > Is it fine to let it use "FreeLocalStorage" unless it goes till zero? Hi Yudhi, FreeLocalStorage and some of the other things you ask about are specific to AWS RDS, so you might have better luck getting answers on an RDS-specific mailing list. We also use RDS-hosted Postgres and so I completely understand how Postgres and RDS are intertwined. We have had runaway queries exhaust FreeLocalStorage. It has been quite a while since that happened, so my memories are hazy, but I’m pretty sure that when we used all of FreeLocalStorage, the result was that Postgres restarted. It might be equivalent to using all memory and disk space on a standalone system. Once there’s no storage left, behavior is unpredictable but we can’t be surprised if things crash. Usually our runaway queries got killed before FreeLocalStorage filled up, but not always. I second Veem’s suggestion to set work_mem on a per-session basis. Also note that the doc for work_mem says, “the total memory used could be many times the value of work_mem; it is necessary to keep this fact in mind when choosing the value." https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/runtime-config-resource.html#GUC-WORK-MEM Cheers Philip ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Suggestion for memory parameters @ 2024-10-01 06:51 yudhi s <[email protected]> parent: Philip Semanchuk <[email protected]> 0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread From: yudhi s @ 2024-10-01 06:51 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Philip Semanchuk <[email protected]>; +Cc: pgsql-general <[email protected]> On Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 8:46 PM Philip Semanchuk < [email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sep 26, 2024, at 7:03 AM, yudhi s <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > In a RDS postgres ... > > > Is it fine to let it use "FreeLocalStorage" unless it goes till zero? > > Hi Yudhi, > FreeLocalStorage and some of the other things you ask about are specific > to AWS RDS, so you might have better luck getting answers on an > RDS-specific mailing list. We also use RDS-hosted Postgres and so I > completely understand how Postgres and RDS are intertwined. > > We have had runaway queries exhaust FreeLocalStorage. It has been quite a > while since that happened, so my memories are hazy, but I’m pretty sure > that when we used all of FreeLocalStorage, the result was that Postgres > restarted. It might be equivalent to using all memory and disk space on a > standalone system. Once there’s no storage left, behavior is unpredictable > but we can’t be surprised if things crash. Usually our runaway queries got > killed before FreeLocalStorage filled up, but not always. > > I second Veem’s suggestion to set work_mem on a per-session basis. Also > note that the doc for work_mem says, “the total memory used could be many > times the value of work_mem; it is necessary to keep this fact in mind when > choosing the value." > > > https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/runtime-config-resource.html#GUC-WORK-MEM > > Thank you. When I execute the query with explain (analyze, buffers),I see the section below in the plan having "sort method" information in three places each showing ~75MB size, which if combined is coming <250MB. So , does that mean it's enough to set the work_mem as ~250MB for these queries before they start? But yes somehow this query is finished in a few seconds when i execute using explain(analyze,buffers) while if i run it without using explain it runs for ~10minutes+. My expectation was that doing (explain analyze) should actually execute the query fully. Is my understanding correct here and if the disk spilling stats which I am seeing is accurate enough to go with? Limit (cost=557514.75..592517.20 rows=300000 width=1430) (actual time=2269.939..2541.527 rows=300000 loops=1) Buffers: shared hit=886206, temp read=38263 written=56947 I/O Timings: temp read=70.040 write=660.073 -> Gather Merge (cost=557514.75..643393.02 rows=736048 width=1430) (actual time=2269.938..2513.748 rows=300000 loops=1) Workers Planned: 2 Workers Launched: 2 Buffers: shared hit=886206, temp read=38263 written=56947 I/O Timings: temp read=70.040 write=660.073 -> Sort (cost=556514.73..557434.79 rows=368024 width=1430) (actual time=2227.392..2279.389 rows=100135 loops=3) Sort Key: column1, column2 Sort Method: external merge Disk: *77352kB* Buffers: shared hit=886206, temp read=38263 written=56947 I/O Timings: temp read=70.040 write=660.073 Worker 0: Sort Method: external merge Disk: *75592kB* Worker 1: Sort Method: external merge Disk: *74440kB* -> Parallel Append (cost=0.00..64614.94 rows=368024 width=1430) (actual time=0.406..570.105 rows=299204 loops=3) ^ permalink raw reply [nested|flat] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2024-10-01 06:51 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox mbox.gz follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2024-09-26 11:03 Suggestion for memory parameters yudhi s <[email protected]> 2024-09-30 15:16 ` Philip Semanchuk <[email protected]> 2024-10-01 06:51 ` yudhi s <[email protected]>
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox