From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Sait Talha Nisanci <Sait.Nisanci@microsoft.com>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6@gmail.com>
Cc: David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: WIP: WAL prefetch (another approach)
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 16:28:54 -0400
Message-ID: <20200827202853.GT29590@tamriel.snowman.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmoYSnACj2ouDKVO+vJ=3r_=ChhmE2mvy2DGOKbpDeTYG+Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20200827182642.GO29590@tamriel.snowman.net>
<6B918AFB-88D6-4687-8B4A-34C472E48BF4@anarazel.de>
<20200827185116.GQ29590@tamriel.snowman.net>
<CA+TgmoYSnACj2ouDKVO+vJ=3r_=ChhmE2mvy2DGOKbpDeTYG+Q@mail.gmail.com>
Greetings,
* Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 2:51 PM Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> wrote:
> > > Hm? At least earlier versions didn't do prefetching for records with an fpw, and only for subsequent records affecting the same or if not in s_b anymore.
> >
> > We don't actually read the page when we're replaying an FPW though..?
> > If we don't read it, and we entirely write the page from the FPW, how is
> > pre-fetching helping..?
>
> Suppose there is a checkpoint. Then we replay a record with an FPW,
> pre-fetching nothing. Then the buffer gets evicted from
> shared_buffers, and maybe the OS cache too. Then, before the next
> checkpoint, we again replay a record for the same page. At this point,
> pre-fetching should be helpful.
Sure- but if we're talking about 25GB of WAL, on a server that's got
32GB, then why would those pages end up getting evicted from memory
entirely? Particularly, enough of them to end up with such a huge
difference in replay time..
I do agree that if we've got more outstanding WAL between checkpoints
than the system's got memory then that certainly changes things, but
that wasn't what I understood the case to be here.
> Admittedly, I don't quite understand whether that is what is happening
> in this test case, or why SDD vs. HDD should make any difference. But
> there doesn't seem to be any reason why it doesn't make sense in
> theory.
I agree that this could be a reason, but it doesn't seem to quite fit in
this particular case given the amount of memory and WAL. I'm suspecting
that it's something else and I'd very much like to know if it's a
general "this applies to all (most? a lot of?) SSDs because the
hardware has a larger than 8KB page size and therefore the kernel has to
read it", or if it's something odd about this particular system and
doesn't apply generally.
Thanks,
Stephen
Attachments:
signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 818B) download
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: sfrost@snowman.net, robertmhaas@gmail.com, andres@anarazel.de, Sait.Nisanci@microsoft.com, thomas.munro@gmail.com, tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com, 9erthalion6@gmail.com, david@pgmasters.net, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: WIP: WAL prefetch (another approach)
In-Reply-To: <20200827202853.GT29590@tamriel.snowman.net>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox