MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAGbZs7g+x0qUhe9Xdf_SqC4U5HGMnM=rnuvoc+vCR4Hbq1X=wA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKZiRmyN40=WW27Mnkj_zO3FvYn8fcoFwnQ+a=+W6zymqPr0vQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABV9wwPp8Zn3-9B4ciYTEAuBueMUv5BoRAvRw34F3yrNS4XOUw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGbZs7j9ESVUF2kpqndy4NXgVevnaHJb7144NFC6WK08yXo1Eg@mail.gmail.com> <CAGjGUAJRVnbzj8jJqHYS-91HEojLeTFPgpaYDBsUAbG3cJ0o2g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAGjGUAJRVnbzj8jJqHYS-91HEojLeTFPgpaYDBsUAbG3cJ0o2g@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?6ZmI5a6X5b+X?= <baotiao@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2026 19:43:34 +0800
Message-ID: <CAGbZs7j2x4Ld7OztM1wrdXD9-PLwYpQXiw1SfKaws85nnHewcA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Doublewrite Buffer as an alternative torn page
 protection to Full Page Write
To: wenhui qiu <qiuwenhuifx@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Treat <rob@xzilla.net>, Jakub Wartak <jakub.wartak@enterprisedb.com>, 
	pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAGbZs7j2x4Ld7OztM1wrdXD9-PLwYpQXiw1SfKaws85nnHewcA%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi wenhui,

Here are the latest benchmark results for the Double Write Buffer (DWB)
proposal. In this round of testing, I have included the two-phase
checkpoint batch fsync optimization and evaluated the impact of
wal_compression (lz4) on both FPW and DWB.

Test Environment:
- PostgreSQL: 19devel (with DWB patch applied)
- Hardware: Linux 5.10, x86_64
- Configuration:
  * shared_buffers = 1GB
  * max_wal_size = 32MB (to stress checkpoint frequency)
  * wal_compression = lz4
  * double_write_buffer_size = 128MB (for DWB mode)
- Workload: sysbench 1.1.0, 10 tables x 1,000,000 rows (~2.3GB dataset)
- Method: 16 threads, 60 seconds per run, each mode tested
  independently (only one instance running at a time to eliminate
  I/O contention).

Three modes compared:
- FPW: io_torn_pages_protection = full_pages (current default)
- DWB: io_torn_pages_protection = double_writes
- OFF: io_torn_pages_protection = off (no protection, baseline)

Results with wal_compression = lz4
----------------------------------
1. oltp_write_only (pure write transactions: UPDATE + DELETE + INSERT)

Mode         TPS      vs FPW    vs OFF
----      ------      ------    ------
FPW       13,772           -    -64.3%
DWB       20,660      +50.0%    -46.5%
OFF       38,588     +180.2%         -

2. oltp_update_non_index (single UPDATE per transaction)

Mode         TPS      vs FPW    vs OFF
----      ------      ------    ------
FPW       59,427           -    -57.5%
DWB      104,328      +75.6%    -25.4%
OFF      139,870     +135.4%         -

3. oltp_read_write (mixed: 70% reads + 30% writes)

Mode         TPS      vs FPW    vs OFF
----      ------      ------    ------
FPW        6,232           -     -9.0%
DWB        4,408      -29.3%    -35.6%
OFF        6,845       +9.8%         -


Results without wal_compression (for comparison)
------------------------------------------------
Workload                 FPW      DWB      DWB vs FPW
--------              ------   ------      ----------
oltp_write_only        9,651   22,111         +129.1%
oltp_update_non_index 48,624   98,356         +102.3%
oltp_read_write        5,414    5,275           -2.6%


Key Observations:

1. Write-heavy workloads: DWB outperforms FPW by +50% to +76% even
   with lz4 compression enabled. Without lz4, the advantage grows
   to +102% to +129% because uncompressed full-page images cause
   severe WAL bloat.

2. lz4 compression significantly helps FPW: For oltp_write_only, lz4
   boosts FPW from 9,651 to 13,772 TPS (+43%), while DWB sees minimal
   change (22,111 -> 20,660). This is expected -- lz4 compresses the
   8KB full-page images that FPW writes to WAL, but DWB doesn't
   generate FPIs at all, so lz4 has little effect on DWB's WAL volume.

3. Read-heavy mixed workloads: DWB shows a regression (-29%) in
   oltp_read_write with lz4. This workload is 70% reads with only 4
   write operations per transaction, so FPW overhead is minimal.
   Meanwhile, DWB incurs additional I/O overhead from writing pages
   to the double write buffer file, which outweighs the WAL savings
   in this scenario.

4. Batch fsync optimization is critical for DWB: The two-phase
   checkpoint approach (batch all DWB writes in Phase 1 -> single
   fsync -> data file writes in Phase 2) reduces checkpoint DWB
   fsyncs from millions to ~hundreds. For example, in
   oltp_write_only: 1,157,729 DWB page writes -> only 148 fsyncs.

Summary:

DWB provides substantial performance benefits for write-intensive
workloads with frequent checkpoints, which is the scenario where FPW
overhead is most pronounced. The advantage is most significant without
WAL compression (+100~130%), and remains strong (+50~76%) even with
lz4 enabled. For read-dominated mixed workloads, DWB currently shows
overhead that needs further optimization (reducing non-checkpoint
DWB fsync costs).

Regards,
Baotiao