Just for kicks, I ran two 30-minute pgbench tests at scale factor 300 tonight on Nate Boley's machine, with -n -l -c 32 -j 32. The configurations were identical, except that on one of them, I set wal_buffers=64MB. It seemed to make quite a lot of difference:
wal_buffers not set (thus, 16MB): tps = 3162.594605 (including connections establishing) wal_buffers=64MB: tps = 6164.194625 (including connections establishing) Rest of config: shared_buffers = 8GB, maintenance_work_mem = 1GB, synchronous_commit = off, checkpoint_segments = 300, checkpoint_timeout = 15min, checkpoint_completion_target = 0.9, wal_writer_delay = 20ms I have attached tps scatterplots. The obvious conclusion appears to be that, with only 16MB of wal_buffers, the buffer "wraps around" with some regularity: we can't insert more WAL because the buffer we need to use still contains WAL that hasn't yet been fsync'd, leading to long stalls. More buffer space ameliorates the problem. This is not very surprising, when you think about it: it's clear that the peak tps rate approaches 18k/s on these tests; right after a checkpoint, every update will force a full page write - that is, a WAL record > 8kB. So we'll fill up a 16MB WAL segment in about a tenth of a second. That doesn't leave much breathing room. I think we might want to consider adjusting our auto-tuning formula for wal_buffers to allow for a higher cap, although this is obviously not enough data to draw any firm conclusions. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
<<attachment: tps-master-64mb.png>>
<<attachment: tps-master.png>>
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
