On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 8:24 AM Henrique Montenegro <typ...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 4:03 AM Sebastian Dressler <sebast...@swarm64.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Henrique,
>>
>> On 15. Jul 2020, at 03:13, Henrique Montenegro <typ...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> ```
>> ssl = off
>> shared_buffers = 160GB # min 128kB
>> work_mem = 96GB # min 64kB
>> maintenance_work_mem = 12GB # min 1MB
>> max_stack_depth = 4MB # min 100kB
>> dynamic_shared_memory_type = posix # the default is the first option
>> synchronous_commit = off # synchronization level;
>> commit_delay = 100000 # range 0-100000, in microseconds
>> max_wal_size = 3GB
>> min_wal_size = 1GB
>> min_parallel_index_scan_size = 64kB
>> effective_cache_size = 96GB
>> log_min_messages = debug1 # values in order of decreasing detail:
>> log_checkpoints = on
>> log_error_verbosity = verbose # terse, default, or verbose messages
>> log_line_prefix = '%m [%p] %q%u@%d ' # special values:
>> log_lock_waits = on # log lock waits >=
>> deadlock_timeout
>> log_timezone = 'America/New_York'
>> log_executor_stats = on
>> datestyle = 'iso, mdy'
>> ```
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Limit | Time (seconds)
>> ---------|------------------
>> 10 | 0.6
>> 100 | 0.6
>> 1000 | 1.3
>> 10000 | 116.9
>> 100000 | 134.8
>> 1000000 | 193.2
>>
>> Notice the jump in time execution from a 1k limit to a 10k limit. Amount
>> of
>> data raised 10x and execution time raised 100x.
>>
>> It seems to me that inserting the data in this case is slow because the
>> time
>> it takes to identify the duplicate records (which I assume would be done
>> in a
>> fashion similiar to the queries above) is taking a long time.
>>
>> I have attached the `explain analyze` output for the 1k and 10k queries to
>> this email (they are 4k+ lines each, didn't want to make this messager
>> bigger
>> than it already is).
>>
>> * exp1k.txt
>> * exp10k.txt
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>> I quickly glanced at the exp10k plan and there are some things I noticed
>> (sorry for not going over all the mail, have to re-read it again):
>>
>> - There are a lot of partitions now, you maybe want consider reducing the
>> amount. To me it seems that you overload the system. Scan times are low but
>> the overhead to start a scan is likely quite high.
>> - work_mem = 96GB seems very high to me, I guess you'd be better with
>> e.g. 4GB as a start but many more parallel workers. For instance, depending
>> on your machine, try adjusting the max_worker_processes,
>> max_parallel_workers and max_parallel_workers_per_gather. Values depend a
>> bit on your system, make sure, that max_parallel_workers_per_gather are
>> much lower than max_parallel_workers and that must be lower than
>> max_worker_processes. You can try large values, for instance 128, 120, 12.
>> - You may want to test with min_parallel_table_scan_size = 0
>> - Did you enable partition pruning, partitionwise join and aggregate?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Sebastian
>>
>> --
>>
>> Sebastian Dressler, Solution Architect
>> +49 30 994 0496 72 | sebast...@swarm64.com
>>
>> Swarm64 AS
>> Parkveien 41 B | 0258 Oslo | Norway
>> Registered at Brønnøysundregistrene in Norway under Org.-Number 911 662
>> 787
>> CEO/Geschäftsführer (Daglig Leder): Thomas Richter; Chairman/Vorsitzender
>> (Styrets Leder): Dr. Sverre Munck
>>
>> Swarm64 AS Zweigstelle Hive
>> Ullsteinstr. 120 | 12109 Berlin | Germany
>> Registered at Amtsgericht Charlottenburg - HRB 154382 B
>>
>>
> Hi Sebastian,
>
> That is a good idea about the parallel workers. I have tried to update
> them and will post the results as soon as I have them.
> Regarding the partition pruning it is set to the default (which is on).
> partitionwise_join and partitionwise_aggregate are both set to off. I will
> turn them on as well and see how it goes.
>
> Thanks for the suggestions! I will keep the list updated.
>
> Henrique
>
>
Changing those parameters had almost no effect in the performance. I just
executed the following `SELECT` again:
```
explain analyze
select user_id from users_basic_profile_no_dups_partitioned
where
user_id in (
select user_id from users_basic_profile order by user_id
);
```
I am looking at the plan and seeing things like this:
```
Index Only Scan using ubp_from_100036700000000_to_100036800000000_pkey on
ubp_from_100036700000000_to_100036800000000 (cost=0.42..1.99 rows=1
width=8) (actual time=3.276..3.276 rows=1 loops=611)
Index Cond: (user_id = users_basic_profile.user_id)
Heap Fetches: 0
Buffers: shared hit=1,688 read=146
```
Any idea why the actual time is in the 3ms range? If I query that partition
directly, like this:
```
explain analyze select user_id from
ubp_from_100036700000000_to_100036800000000 where user_id in (select
user_id from users_basic_profile order by user_id);
```
I get this:
```
-> Index Only Scan using
ubp_from_100036700000000_to_100036800000000_pkey on
ubp_from_100036700000000_to_100036800000000 (cost=0.42..4.12 rows=1
width=8) (actual time=0.002..0.002 rows=0 loops=984904)
Index Cond: (user_id = users_basic_profile.user_id)
Heap Fetches: 0
```
As you can see, the `actual_time` when querying the partition table
directly goes to 0.002 which is almost 2000x faster.
My google fu is also coming short on figuring that out. Any suggestions?
Thanks!
Henrique
