I have run some benchmarks for this patch. Overall it seems that there is a 
good improvement with the patch on recovery times:

The VMs I used have 32GB RAM, pgbench is initialized with a scale factor 
3000(so it doesn’t fit to memory, ~45GB).

In order to avoid checkpoints during benchmark, max_wal_size(200GB) and 
checkpoint_timeout(200 mins) are set to a high value. 

The run is cancelled when there is a reasonable amount of WAL ( > 25GB). The 
recovery times are measured from the REDO logs.

I have tried combination of SSD, HDD, full_page_writes = on/off and 
max_io_concurrency = 10/50, the recovery times are as follows (in seconds):

                               No prefetch          |     Default prefetch 
values  |          Default + max_io_concurrency = 50
SSD, full_page_writes = on      852             301                             
197
SSD, full_page_writes = off     1642            1359                            
1391
HDD, full_page_writes = on      6027            6345                            
6390
HDD, full_page_writes = off     738             275                             
192

Default prefetch values:
-       Max_recovery_prefetch_distance = 256KB
-       Max_io_concurrency = 10

It probably makes sense to compare each row separately as the size of WAL can 
be different.

Talha.

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> 
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2020 9:57 AM
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net>; Dmitry Dolgov <9erthali...@gmail.com>; 
David Steele <da...@pgmasters.net>; Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de>; Alvaro 
Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com>; pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hack...@postgresql.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: WIP: WAL prefetch (another approach)

On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 10:47 PM Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> 
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 06, 2020 at 02:58:44PM +1200, Thomas Munro wrote:
> >On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 3:47 AM Tomas Vondra
> >> Any luck trying to reproduce thigs? Should I try again and collect 
> >> some additional debug info?
> >
> >No luck.  I'm working on it now, and also trying to reduce the 
> >overheads so that we're not doing extra work when it doesn't help.
>
> OK, I'll see if I can still reproduce it.

Since someone else ask me off-list, here's a rebase, with no functional 
changes.  Soon I'll post a new improved version, but this version just fixes 
the bitrot and hopefully turns cfbot green.

Reply via email to