Thread
Commits
-
Change data type of counters in BufferUsage and WalUsage from long to int64.
- d780d7c0882f 14.0 landed
-
Track total number of WAL records, FPIs and bytes generated in the cluster.
- 01469241b2ff 14.0 landed
-
Add statistics to pg_stat_wal view for wal related parameter tuning
Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> — 2020-10-20T02:31:11Z
Hi, I think we need to add some statistics to pg_stat_wal view. Although there are some parameter related WAL, there are few statistics for tuning them. I think it's better to provide the following statistics. Please let me know your comments. ``` postgres=# SELECT * from pg_stat_wal; -[ RECORD 1 ]-------+------------------------------ wal_records | 2000224 wal_fpi | 47 wal_bytes | 248216337 wal_buffers_full | 20954 wal_init_file | 8 wal_write_backend | 20960 wal_write_walwriter | 46 wal_write_time | 51 wal_sync_backend | 7 wal_sync_walwriter | 8 wal_sync_time | 0 stats_reset | 2020-10-20 11:04:51.307771+09 ``` 1. Basic statistics of WAL activity - wal_records: Total number of WAL records generated - wal_fpi: Total number of WAL full page images generated - wal_bytes: Total amount of WAL bytes generated To understand DB's performance, first, we will check the performance trends for the entire database instance. For example, if the number of wal_fpi becomes higher, users may tune "wal_compression", "checkpoint_timeout" and so on. Although users can check the above statistics via EXPLAIN, auto_explain, autovacuum and pg_stat_statements now, if users want to see the performance trends for the entire database, they must recalculate the statistics. I think it is useful to add the sum of the basic statistics. 2. WAL segment file creation - wal_init_file: Total number of WAL segment files created. To create a new WAL file may have an impact on the performance of a write-heavy workload generating lots of WAL. If this number is reported high, to reduce the number of this initialization, we can tune WAL-related parameters so that more "recycled" WAL files can be held. 3. Number of when WAL is flushed - wal_write_backend : Total number of WAL data written to the disk by backends - wal_write_walwriter : Total number of WAL data written to the disk by walwriter - wal_sync_backend : Total number of WAL data synced to the disk by backends - wal_sync_walwriter : Total number of WAL data synced to the disk by walwrite I think it's useful for tuning "synchronous_commit" and "commit_delay" for query executions. If the number of WAL is flushed is high, users can know "synchronous_commit" is useful for the workload. Also, it's useful for tuning "wal_writer_delay" and "wal_writer_flush_after" for wal writer. If the number is high, users can change the parameter for performance. 4. Wait time when WAL is flushed - wal_write_time : Total amount of time that has been spent in the portion of WAL data was written to disk by backend and walwriter, in milliseconds (if track-io-timing is enabled, otherwise zero.) - wal_sync_time : Total amount of time that has been spent in the portion of WAL data was synced to disk by backend and walwriter, in milliseconds (if track-io-timing is enabled, otherwise zero.) If the time becomes much higher, users can detect the possibility of disk failure. Since users can see how much flush time occupies of the query execution time, it may lead to query tuning and so on. Best Regards, -- Masahiro Ikeda NTT DATA CORPORATION -
Re: Add statistics to pg_stat_wal view for wal related parameter tuning
Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> — 2020-10-20T03:46:55Z
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 8:01 AM Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I think we need to add some statistics to pg_stat_wal view. > > Although there are some parameter related WAL, > there are few statistics for tuning them. > > I think it's better to provide the following statistics. > Please let me know your comments. > > ``` > postgres=# SELECT * from pg_stat_wal; > -[ RECORD 1 ]-------+------------------------------ > wal_records | 2000224 > wal_fpi | 47 > wal_bytes | 248216337 > wal_buffers_full | 20954 > wal_init_file | 8 > wal_write_backend | 20960 > wal_write_walwriter | 46 > wal_write_time | 51 > wal_sync_backend | 7 > wal_sync_walwriter | 8 > wal_sync_time | 0 > stats_reset | 2020-10-20 11:04:51.307771+09 > ``` > > 1. Basic statistics of WAL activity > > - wal_records: Total number of WAL records generated > - wal_fpi: Total number of WAL full page images generated > - wal_bytes: Total amount of WAL bytes generated > > To understand DB's performance, first, we will check the performance > trends for the entire database instance. > For example, if the number of wal_fpi becomes higher, users may tune > "wal_compression", "checkpoint_timeout" and so on. > > Although users can check the above statistics via EXPLAIN, auto_explain, > autovacuum and pg_stat_statements now, > if users want to see the performance trends for the entire database, > they must recalculate the statistics. > Here, do you mean to say 'entire cluster' instead of 'entire database' because it seems these stats are getting collected for the entire cluster? > I think it is useful to add the sum of the basic statistics. > There is an argument that it is better to view these stats at the statement-level so that one can know which statements are causing most WAL and then try to rate-limit them if required in the application and anyway they can get the aggregate of all the WAL if they want. We have added these stats in PG-13, so do we have any evidence that the already added stats don't provide enough information? I understand that you are trying to display the accumulated stats here which if required users/DBA need to compute with the currently provided stats. OTOH, sometimes adding more ways to do some things causes difficulty for users to understand and learn. I see that we also need to add extra code to capture these stats (some of which is in performance-critical path especially in XLogInsertRecord) which again makes me a bit uncomfortable. It might be that it is all fine as it is very important to collect these stats at cluster-level in spite that the same information can be gathered at statement-level to help customers but I don't see a very strong case for that in your proposal. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
-
Re: Add statistics to pg_stat_wal view for wal related parameter tuning
Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> — 2020-10-20T07:11:29Z
On 2020-10-20 12:46, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 8:01 AM Masahiro Ikeda > <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I think we need to add some statistics to pg_stat_wal view. >> >> Although there are some parameter related WAL, >> there are few statistics for tuning them. >> >> I think it's better to provide the following statistics. >> Please let me know your comments. >> >> ``` >> postgres=# SELECT * from pg_stat_wal; >> -[ RECORD 1 ]-------+------------------------------ >> wal_records | 2000224 >> wal_fpi | 47 >> wal_bytes | 248216337 >> wal_buffers_full | 20954 >> wal_init_file | 8 >> wal_write_backend | 20960 >> wal_write_walwriter | 46 >> wal_write_time | 51 >> wal_sync_backend | 7 >> wal_sync_walwriter | 8 >> wal_sync_time | 0 >> stats_reset | 2020-10-20 11:04:51.307771+09 >> ``` >> >> 1. Basic statistics of WAL activity >> >> - wal_records: Total number of WAL records generated >> - wal_fpi: Total number of WAL full page images generated >> - wal_bytes: Total amount of WAL bytes generated >> >> To understand DB's performance, first, we will check the performance >> trends for the entire database instance. >> For example, if the number of wal_fpi becomes higher, users may tune >> "wal_compression", "checkpoint_timeout" and so on. >> >> Although users can check the above statistics via EXPLAIN, >> auto_explain, >> autovacuum and pg_stat_statements now, >> if users want to see the performance trends for the entire database, >> they must recalculate the statistics. >> > > Here, do you mean to say 'entire cluster' instead of 'entire database' > because it seems these stats are getting collected for the entire > cluster? Thanks for your comments. Yes, I wanted to say 'entire cluster'. >> I think it is useful to add the sum of the basic statistics. >> > > There is an argument that it is better to view these stats at the > statement-level so that one can know which statements are causing most > WAL and then try to rate-limit them if required in the application and > anyway they can get the aggregate of all the WAL if they want. We have > added these stats in PG-13, so do we have any evidence that the > already added stats don't provide enough information? I understand > that you are trying to display the accumulated stats here which if > required users/DBA need to compute with the currently provided stats. > OTOH, sometimes adding more ways to do some things causes difficulty > for users to understand and learn. I agreed that the statement-level stat is important and I understood that we can know the aggregated WAL stats of pg_stat_statement view and autovacuum's log. But now, WAL stats generated by autovacuum can be output to logs and it is not easy to aggregate them. Since WAL writes impacts for the entire cluster, I thought it's natural to provide accumulated value. > I see that we also need to add extra code to capture these stats (some > of which is in performance-critical path especially in > XLogInsertRecord) which again makes me a bit uncomfortable. It might > be that it is all fine as it is very important to collect these stats > at cluster-level in spite that the same information can be gathered at > statement-level to help customers but I don't see a very strong case > for that in your proposal. Also about performance, I thought there are few impacts because it increments stats in memory. If I can implement to reuse pgWalUsage's value which already collects these stats, there is no impact in XLogInsertRecord. For example, how about pg_stat_wal() calculates the accumulated value of wal_records, wal_fpi, and wal_bytes to use pgWalUsage's value? Regards -- Masahiro Ikeda NTT DATA CORPORATION
-
Re: Add statistics to pg_stat_wal view for wal related parameter tuning
Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> — 2020-10-21T04:41:06Z
On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 12:41 PM Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> wrote: > > On 2020-10-20 12:46, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 8:01 AM Masahiro Ikeda > >> 1. Basic statistics of WAL activity > >> > >> - wal_records: Total number of WAL records generated > >> - wal_fpi: Total number of WAL full page images generated > >> - wal_bytes: Total amount of WAL bytes generated > >> > >> To understand DB's performance, first, we will check the performance > >> trends for the entire database instance. > >> For example, if the number of wal_fpi becomes higher, users may tune > >> "wal_compression", "checkpoint_timeout" and so on. > >> > >> Although users can check the above statistics via EXPLAIN, > >> auto_explain, > >> autovacuum and pg_stat_statements now, > >> if users want to see the performance trends for the entire database, > >> they must recalculate the statistics. > >> > > > > Here, do you mean to say 'entire cluster' instead of 'entire database' > > because it seems these stats are getting collected for the entire > > cluster? > > Thanks for your comments. > Yes, I wanted to say 'entire cluster'. > > >> I think it is useful to add the sum of the basic statistics. > >> > > > > There is an argument that it is better to view these stats at the > > statement-level so that one can know which statements are causing most > > WAL and then try to rate-limit them if required in the application and > > anyway they can get the aggregate of all the WAL if they want. We have > > added these stats in PG-13, so do we have any evidence that the > > already added stats don't provide enough information? I understand > > that you are trying to display the accumulated stats here which if > > required users/DBA need to compute with the currently provided stats. > > OTOH, sometimes adding more ways to do some things causes difficulty > > for users to understand and learn. > > I agreed that the statement-level stat is important and I understood > that we can > know the aggregated WAL stats of pg_stat_statement view and autovacuum's > log. > But now, WAL stats generated by autovacuum can be output to logs and it > is not > easy to aggregate them. Since WAL writes impacts for the entire cluster, > I thought > it's natural to provide accumulated value. > I think it is other way i.e if we would have accumulated stats then it makes sense to provide those at statement-level because one would like to know the exact cause of more WAL activity. Say it is due to an autovacuum or due to the particular set of statements then it would easier for users to do something about it. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
-
Re: Add statistics to pg_stat_wal view for wal related parameter tuning
Movead <lchch1990@sina.cn> — 2020-10-21T06:54:48Z
I think it's really a more convenient way to collect wal usage information, with it we can query when I want. Several points on my side: 1. It will be nice If you provide a chance to reset the information in WalStats, so that we can reset it without restart the database. 2. I think 'wal_write_backend' is mean wal write times happen in backends. The describe in document is not so clear, suggest rewrite it. 3. I do not think it's a correct describe in document for 'wal_buffers_full'. 4. Quite strange to collect twice in XLogInsertRecord() for xl_tot_len, m_wal_records, m_wal_fpi. 5. I notice some code in issue_xlog_fsync() function to collect sync info, a standby may call the issue_xlog_fsync() too, which do not want to to collect this info. I think this need some change avoid run by standby side. Regards, Highgo Software (Canada/China/Pakistan) URL : www.highgo.ca EMAIL: mailto:movead(dot)li(at)highgo(dot)ca
-
Re: Add statistics to pg_stat_wal view for wal related parameter tuning
Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> — 2020-10-21T09:03:23Z
At Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:11:29 +0900, Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> wrote in > On 2020-10-20 12:46, Amit Kapila wrote: > > I see that we also need to add extra code to capture these stats (some > > of which is in performance-critical path especially in > > XLogInsertRecord) which again makes me a bit uncomfortable. It might > > be that it is all fine as it is very important to collect these stats > > at cluster-level in spite that the same information can be gathered at > > statement-level to help customers but I don't see a very strong case > > for that in your proposal. We should avoid that duplication as possible even if the both number are important. > Also about performance, I thought there are few impacts because it > increments stats in memory. If I can implement to reuse pgWalUsage's > value which already collects these stats, there is no impact in > XLogInsertRecord. > For example, how about pg_stat_wal() calculates the accumulated > value of wal_records, wal_fpi, and wal_bytes to use pgWalUsage's > value? I don't think that works, but it would work that pgstat_send_wal() takes the difference of that values between two successive calls. WalUsage prevWalUsage; ... pgstat_send_wal() { .. /* fill in some values using pgWalUsage */ WalStats.m_wal_bytes = pgWalUsage.wal_bytes - prevWalUsage.wal_bytes; WalStats.m_wal_records = pgWalUsage.wal_records - prevWalUsage.wal_records; WalStats.m_wal_wal_fpi = pgWalUsage.wal_fpi - prevWalUsage.wal_fpi; ... pgstat_send(&WalStats, sizeof(WalStats)); /* remember the current numbers */ prevWalUsage = pgWalUsage; regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center -
Re: Add statistics to pg_stat_wal view for wal related parameter tuning
Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> — 2020-10-22T01:09:21Z
On 2020-10-21 13:41, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 12:41 PM Masahiro Ikeda > <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> wrote: >> >> On 2020-10-20 12:46, Amit Kapila wrote: >> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 8:01 AM Masahiro Ikeda >> >> 1. Basic statistics of WAL activity >> >> >> >> - wal_records: Total number of WAL records generated >> >> - wal_fpi: Total number of WAL full page images generated >> >> - wal_bytes: Total amount of WAL bytes generated >> >> >> >> To understand DB's performance, first, we will check the performance >> >> trends for the entire database instance. >> >> For example, if the number of wal_fpi becomes higher, users may tune >> >> "wal_compression", "checkpoint_timeout" and so on. >> >> >> >> Although users can check the above statistics via EXPLAIN, >> >> auto_explain, >> >> autovacuum and pg_stat_statements now, >> >> if users want to see the performance trends for the entire database, >> >> they must recalculate the statistics. >> >> >> > >> > Here, do you mean to say 'entire cluster' instead of 'entire database' >> > because it seems these stats are getting collected for the entire >> > cluster? >> >> Thanks for your comments. >> Yes, I wanted to say 'entire cluster'. >> >> >> I think it is useful to add the sum of the basic statistics. >> >> >> > >> > There is an argument that it is better to view these stats at the >> > statement-level so that one can know which statements are causing most >> > WAL and then try to rate-limit them if required in the application and >> > anyway they can get the aggregate of all the WAL if they want. We have >> > added these stats in PG-13, so do we have any evidence that the >> > already added stats don't provide enough information? I understand >> > that you are trying to display the accumulated stats here which if >> > required users/DBA need to compute with the currently provided stats. >> > OTOH, sometimes adding more ways to do some things causes difficulty >> > for users to understand and learn. >> >> I agreed that the statement-level stat is important and I understood >> that we can >> know the aggregated WAL stats of pg_stat_statement view and >> autovacuum's >> log. >> But now, WAL stats generated by autovacuum can be output to logs and >> it >> is not >> easy to aggregate them. Since WAL writes impacts for the entire >> cluster, >> I thought >> it's natural to provide accumulated value. >> > > I think it is other way i.e if we would have accumulated stats then it > makes sense to provide those at statement-level because one would like > to know the exact cause of more WAL activity. Say it is due to an > autovacuum or due to the particular set of statements then it would > easier for users to do something about it. OK, I'll remove them. Do you have any comments for other statistics? -- Masahiro Ikeda NTT DATA CORPORATION
-
Re: Add statistics to pg_stat_wal view for wal related parameter tuning
Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> — 2020-10-22T01:34:28Z
On 2020-10-21 15:54, lchch1990@sina.cn wrote: > I think it's really a more convenient way to collect wal usage > information, > with it we can query when I want. Several points on my side: Thanks for your comments. > 1. It will be nice If you provide a chance to reset the information in > WalStats, > so that we can reset it without restart the database. I agree. Now, pg_stat_wal supports reset all informantion in WalStats using pg_stat_reset_shared('wal') function. Isn't it enough? > 2. I think 'wal_write_backend' is mean wal write times happen in > backends. The describe in document is not so clear, suggest rewrite > it. OK, I'll rewrite to "Total number of times backends write WAL data to the disk". > 3. I do not think it's a correct describe in document for > 'wal_buffers_full'. Where should I rewrite the description? If my understanding is not correct, please let me know. > 4. Quite strange to collect twice in XLogInsertRecord() for > xl_tot_len, > m_wal_records, m_wal_fpi. Yes, Amit-san pointed me that too. I'll remove them from pg_stat_wal since pg_stat_statements and vacuum log already shows the related statistics and there is a comment it's enough. Anyway, if you need to the accumulated above statistics in pg_stat_wal, please let me know. > 5. I notice some code in issue_xlog_fsync() function to collect sync > info, > a standby may call the issue_xlog_fsync() too, which do not want to > to collect this info. I think this need some change avoid run by > standby > side. Thanks, I will fix it. Regards, -- Masahiro Ikeda NTT DATA CORPORATION -
Re: Add statistics to pg_stat_wal view for wal related parameter tuning
Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> — 2020-10-22T01:44:53Z
On 2020-10-21 18:03, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > At Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:11:29 +0900, Masahiro Ikeda > <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> wrote in >> On 2020-10-20 12:46, Amit Kapila wrote: >> > I see that we also need to add extra code to capture these stats (some >> > of which is in performance-critical path especially in >> > XLogInsertRecord) which again makes me a bit uncomfortable. It might >> > be that it is all fine as it is very important to collect these stats >> > at cluster-level in spite that the same information can be gathered at >> > statement-level to help customers but I don't see a very strong case >> > for that in your proposal. > > We should avoid that duplication as possible even if the both number > are important. > >> Also about performance, I thought there are few impacts because it >> increments stats in memory. If I can implement to reuse pgWalUsage's >> value which already collects these stats, there is no impact in >> XLogInsertRecord. >> For example, how about pg_stat_wal() calculates the accumulated >> value of wal_records, wal_fpi, and wal_bytes to use pgWalUsage's >> value? > > I don't think that works, but it would work that pgstat_send_wal() > takes the difference of that values between two successive calls. > > WalUsage prevWalUsage; > ... > pgstat_send_wal() > { > .. > /* fill in some values using pgWalUsage */ > WalStats.m_wal_bytes = pgWalUsage.wal_bytes - > prevWalUsage.wal_bytes; > WalStats.m_wal_records = pgWalUsage.wal_records - > prevWalUsage.wal_records; > WalStats.m_wal_wal_fpi = pgWalUsage.wal_fpi - > prevWalUsage.wal_fpi; > ... > pgstat_send(&WalStats, sizeof(WalStats)); > > /* remember the current numbers */ > prevWalUsage = pgWalUsage; Thanks for your advice. This code can avoid the performance impact of critical code. By the way, what do you think to add these statistics to the pg_stat_wal view? I thought to remove the above statistics because there is advice that PG13's features, for example, pg_stat_statement view, vacuum log, and so on can cover use-cases. regards, -- Masahiro Ikeda NTT DATA CORPORATION -
Re: Add statistics to pg_stat_wal view for wal related parameter tuning
Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> — 2020-10-22T04:54:16Z
At Thu, 22 Oct 2020 10:44:53 +0900, Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> wrote in > On 2020-10-21 18:03, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > > At Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:11:29 +0900, Masahiro Ikeda > > <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> wrote in > >> On 2020-10-20 12:46, Amit Kapila wrote: > >> > I see that we also need to add extra code to capture these stats (some > >> > of which is in performance-critical path especially in > >> > XLogInsertRecord) which again makes me a bit uncomfortable. It might > >> > be that it is all fine as it is very important to collect these stats > >> > at cluster-level in spite that the same information can be gathered at > >> > statement-level to help customers but I don't see a very strong case > >> > for that in your proposal. > > We should avoid that duplication as possible even if the both number > > are important. > > > >> Also about performance, I thought there are few impacts because it > >> increments stats in memory. If I can implement to reuse pgWalUsage's > >> value which already collects these stats, there is no impact in > >> XLogInsertRecord. > >> For example, how about pg_stat_wal() calculates the accumulated > >> value of wal_records, wal_fpi, and wal_bytes to use pgWalUsage's > >> value? > > I don't think that works, but it would work that pgstat_send_wal() > > takes the difference of that values between two successive calls. > > WalUsage prevWalUsage; > > ... > > pgstat_send_wal() > > { > > .. > > /* fill in some values using pgWalUsage */ > > WalStats.m_wal_bytes = pgWalUsage.wal_bytes - prevWalUsage.wal_bytes; > > WalStats.m_wal_records = pgWalUsage.wal_records - > > prevWalUsage.wal_records; > > WalStats.m_wal_wal_fpi = pgWalUsage.wal_fpi - prevWalUsage.wal_fpi; > > ... > > pgstat_send(&WalStats, sizeof(WalStats)); > > /* remember the current numbers */ > > prevWalUsage = pgWalUsage; > > Thanks for your advice. This code can avoid the performance impact of > critical code. > > By the way, what do you think to add these statistics to the > pg_stat_wal view? > I thought to remove the above statistics because there is advice that > PG13's features, > for example, pg_stat_statement view, vacuum log, and so on can cover > use-cases. At Thu, 22 Oct 2020 10:09:21 +0900, Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> wrote in > >> I agreed that the statement-level stat is important and I understood > >> that we can > >> know the aggregated WAL stats of pg_stat_statement view and > >> autovacuum's > >> log. > >> But now, WAL stats generated by autovacuum can be output to logs and > >> it > >> is not > >> easy to aggregate them. Since WAL writes impacts for the entire > >> cluster, > >> I thought > >> it's natural to provide accumulated value. > >> > > I think it is other way i.e if we would have accumulated stats then it > > makes sense to provide those at statement-level because one would like > > to know the exact cause of more WAL activity. Say it is due to an > > autovacuum or due to the particular set of statements then it would > > easier for users to do something about it. > > OK, I'll remove them. > Do you have any comments for other statistics? That discussion comes from the fact that the code adds duplicate code in a hot path. If we that extra cost doesn't exist, we are free to add the accumulated values in pg_stat_wal. I think they are useful for stats-collecting tools as far as we can do that without such an extra cost. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center -
Re: Add statistics to pg_stat_wal view for wal related parameter tuning
Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> — 2020-10-29T08:03:56Z
Hi, Thanks for your comments and advice. I updated the patch. On 2020-10-21 18:03, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > At Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:11:29 +0900, Masahiro Ikeda > <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> wrote in >> On 2020-10-20 12:46, Amit Kapila wrote: >> > I see that we also need to add extra code to capture these stats (some >> > of which is in performance-critical path especially in >> > XLogInsertRecord) which again makes me a bit uncomfortable. It might >> > be that it is all fine as it is very important to collect these stats >> > at cluster-level in spite that the same information can be gathered at >> > statement-level to help customers but I don't see a very strong case >> > for that in your proposal. > > We should avoid that duplication as possible even if the both number > are important. > >> Also about performance, I thought there are few impacts because it >> increments stats in memory. If I can implement to reuse pgWalUsage's >> value which already collects these stats, there is no impact in >> XLogInsertRecord. >> For example, how about pg_stat_wal() calculates the accumulated >> value of wal_records, wal_fpi, and wal_bytes to use pgWalUsage's >> value? > > I don't think that works, but it would work that pgstat_send_wal() > takes the difference of that values between two successive calls. > > WalUsage prevWalUsage; > ... > pgstat_send_wal() > { > .. > /* fill in some values using pgWalUsage */ > WalStats.m_wal_bytes = pgWalUsage.wal_bytes - > prevWalUsage.wal_bytes; > WalStats.m_wal_records = pgWalUsage.wal_records - > prevWalUsage.wal_records; > WalStats.m_wal_wal_fpi = pgWalUsage.wal_fpi - > prevWalUsage.wal_fpi; > ... > pgstat_send(&WalStats, sizeof(WalStats)); > > /* remember the current numbers */ > prevWalUsage = pgWalUsage; Thanks for Horiguchi-san's advice, I changed to reuse pgWalUsage which is already defined and eliminates the extra overhead. > 5. I notice some code in issue_xlog_fsync() function to collect sync > info, > a standby may call the issue_xlog_fsync() too, which do not want to > to collect this info. I think this need some change avoid run by > standby side. IIUC, issue_xlog_fsync is called by wal receiver on standby side. But it doesn't send collected statistics to the stats collecter. So, I think it's not necessary to change the code to avoid collecting the stats on the standby side. Regards, -- Masahiro Ikeda NTT DATA CORPORATION -
Re: Add statistics to pg_stat_wal view for wal related parameter tuning
Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> — 2020-10-30T02:50:59Z
On 2020/10/29 17:03, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for your comments and advice. I updated the patch. > > On 2020-10-21 18:03, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: >> At Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:11:29 +0900, Masahiro Ikeda >> <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> wrote in >>> On 2020-10-20 12:46, Amit Kapila wrote: >>> > I see that we also need to add extra code to capture these stats (some >>> > of which is in performance-critical path especially in >>> > XLogInsertRecord) which again makes me a bit uncomfortable. It might >>> > be that it is all fine as it is very important to collect these stats >>> > at cluster-level in spite that the same information can be gathered at >>> > statement-level to help customers but I don't see a very strong case >>> > for that in your proposal. >> >> We should avoid that duplication as possible even if the both number >> are important. >> >>> Also about performance, I thought there are few impacts because it >>> increments stats in memory. If I can implement to reuse pgWalUsage's >>> value which already collects these stats, there is no impact in >>> XLogInsertRecord. >>> For example, how about pg_stat_wal() calculates the accumulated >>> value of wal_records, wal_fpi, and wal_bytes to use pgWalUsage's >>> value? >> >> I don't think that works, but it would work that pgstat_send_wal() >> takes the difference of that values between two successive calls. >> >> WalUsage prevWalUsage; >> ... >> pgstat_send_wal() >> { >> .. >> /* fill in some values using pgWalUsage */ >> WalStats.m_wal_bytes = pgWalUsage.wal_bytes - prevWalUsage.wal_bytes; >> WalStats.m_wal_records = pgWalUsage.wal_records - prevWalUsage.wal_records; >> WalStats.m_wal_wal_fpi = pgWalUsage.wal_fpi - prevWalUsage.wal_fpi; >> ... >> pgstat_send(&WalStats, sizeof(WalStats)); >> >> /* remember the current numbers */ >> prevWalUsage = pgWalUsage; > > Thanks for Horiguchi-san's advice, I changed to reuse pgWalUsage > which is already defined and eliminates the extra overhead. + /* fill in some values using pgWalUsage */ + WalStats.m_wal_bytes = pgWalUsage.wal_bytes - prevWalUsage.wal_bytes; + WalStats.m_wal_records = pgWalUsage.wal_records - prevWalUsage.wal_records; + WalStats.m_wal_fpi = pgWalUsage.wal_fpi - prevWalUsage.wal_fpi; It's better to use WalUsageAccumDiff() here? prevWalUsage needs to be initialized with pgWalUsage? + if (AmWalWriterProcess()){ + WalStats.m_wal_write_walwriter++; + } + else + { + WalStats.m_wal_write_backend++; + } I think that it's better not to separate m_wal_write_xxx into two for walwriter and other processes. Instead, we can use one m_wal_write_xxx counter and make pgstat_send_wal() send also the process type to the stats collector. Then the stats collector can accumulate the counters per process type if necessary. If we adopt this approach, we can easily extend pg_stat_wal so that any fields can be reported per process type. Regards, -- Fujii Masao Advanced Computing Technology Center Research and Development Headquarters NTT DATA CORPORATION -
Re: Add statistics to pg_stat_wal view for wal related parameter tuning
Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> — 2020-10-30T03:00:27Z
On 2020/10/20 11:31, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: > Hi, > > I think we need to add some statistics to pg_stat_wal view. > > Although there are some parameter related WAL, > there are few statistics for tuning them. > > I think it's better to provide the following statistics. > Please let me know your comments. > > ``` > postgres=# SELECT * from pg_stat_wal; > -[ RECORD 1 ]-------+------------------------------ > wal_records | 2000224 > wal_fpi | 47 > wal_bytes | 248216337 > wal_buffers_full | 20954 > wal_init_file | 8 > wal_write_backend | 20960 > wal_write_walwriter | 46 > wal_write_time | 51 > wal_sync_backend | 7 > wal_sync_walwriter | 8 > wal_sync_time | 0 > stats_reset | 2020-10-20 11:04:51.307771+09 > ``` > > 1. Basic statistics of WAL activity > > - wal_records: Total number of WAL records generated > - wal_fpi: Total number of WAL full page images generated > - wal_bytes: Total amount of WAL bytes generated > > To understand DB's performance, first, we will check the performance > trends for the entire database instance. > For example, if the number of wal_fpi becomes higher, users may tune > "wal_compression", "checkpoint_timeout" and so on. > > Although users can check the above statistics via EXPLAIN, auto_explain, > autovacuum and pg_stat_statements now, > if users want to see the performance trends for the entire database, > they must recalculate the statistics. > > I think it is useful to add the sum of the basic statistics. > > > 2. WAL segment file creation > > - wal_init_file: Total number of WAL segment files created. > > To create a new WAL file may have an impact on the performance of > a write-heavy workload generating lots of WAL. If this number is reported high, > to reduce the number of this initialization, we can tune WAL-related parameters > so that more "recycled" WAL files can be held. > > > > 3. Number of when WAL is flushed > > - wal_write_backend : Total number of WAL data written to the disk by backends > - wal_write_walwriter : Total number of WAL data written to the disk by walwriter > - wal_sync_backend : Total number of WAL data synced to the disk by backends > - wal_sync_walwriter : Total number of WAL data synced to the disk by walwrite > > I think it's useful for tuning "synchronous_commit" and "commit_delay" for query executions. > If the number of WAL is flushed is high, users can know "synchronous_commit" is useful for the workload. I just wonder how useful these counters are. Even without these counters, we already know synchronous_commit=off is likely to cause the better performance (but has the risk of data loss). So ISTM that these counters are not so useful when tuning synchronous_commit. Regards, -- Fujii Masao Advanced Computing Technology Center Research and Development Headquarters NTT DATA CORPORATION
-
Re: Add statistics to pg_stat_wal view for wal related parameter tuning
Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> — 2020-11-06T01:25:07Z
On 2020-10-30 11:50, Fujii Masao wrote: > On 2020/10/29 17:03, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Thanks for your comments and advice. I updated the patch. >> >> On 2020-10-21 18:03, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: >>> At Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:11:29 +0900, Masahiro Ikeda >>> <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> wrote in >>>> On 2020-10-20 12:46, Amit Kapila wrote: >>>> > I see that we also need to add extra code to capture these stats (some >>>> > of which is in performance-critical path especially in >>>> > XLogInsertRecord) which again makes me a bit uncomfortable. It might >>>> > be that it is all fine as it is very important to collect these stats >>>> > at cluster-level in spite that the same information can be gathered at >>>> > statement-level to help customers but I don't see a very strong case >>>> > for that in your proposal. >>> >>> We should avoid that duplication as possible even if the both number >>> are important. >>> >>>> Also about performance, I thought there are few impacts because it >>>> increments stats in memory. If I can implement to reuse pgWalUsage's >>>> value which already collects these stats, there is no impact in >>>> XLogInsertRecord. >>>> For example, how about pg_stat_wal() calculates the accumulated >>>> value of wal_records, wal_fpi, and wal_bytes to use pgWalUsage's >>>> value? >>> >>> I don't think that works, but it would work that pgstat_send_wal() >>> takes the difference of that values between two successive calls. >>> >>> WalUsage prevWalUsage; >>> ... >>> pgstat_send_wal() >>> { >>> .. >>> /* fill in some values using pgWalUsage */ >>> WalStats.m_wal_bytes = pgWalUsage.wal_bytes - >>> prevWalUsage.wal_bytes; >>> WalStats.m_wal_records = pgWalUsage.wal_records - >>> prevWalUsage.wal_records; >>> WalStats.m_wal_wal_fpi = pgWalUsage.wal_fpi - >>> prevWalUsage.wal_fpi; >>> ... >>> pgstat_send(&WalStats, sizeof(WalStats)); >>> >>> /* remember the current numbers */ >>> prevWalUsage = pgWalUsage; >> >> Thanks for Horiguchi-san's advice, I changed to reuse pgWalUsage >> which is already defined and eliminates the extra overhead. > > + /* fill in some values using pgWalUsage */ > + WalStats.m_wal_bytes = pgWalUsage.wal_bytes - prevWalUsage.wal_bytes; > + WalStats.m_wal_records = pgWalUsage.wal_records - > prevWalUsage.wal_records; > + WalStats.m_wal_fpi = pgWalUsage.wal_fpi - prevWalUsage.wal_fpi; > > It's better to use WalUsageAccumDiff() here? Yes, thanks. I fixed it. > prevWalUsage needs to be initialized with pgWalUsage? > > + if (AmWalWriterProcess()){ > + WalStats.m_wal_write_walwriter++; > + } > + else > + { > + WalStats.m_wal_write_backend++; > + } > > I think that it's better not to separate m_wal_write_xxx into two for > walwriter and other processes. Instead, we can use one m_wal_write_xxx > counter and make pgstat_send_wal() send also the process type to > the stats collector. Then the stats collector can accumulate the > counters > per process type if necessary. If we adopt this approach, we can easily > extend pg_stat_wal so that any fields can be reported per process type. I'll remove the above source code because these counters are not useful. On 2020-10-30 12:00, Fujii Masao wrote: > On 2020/10/20 11:31, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I think we need to add some statistics to pg_stat_wal view. >> >> Although there are some parameter related WAL, >> there are few statistics for tuning them. >> >> I think it's better to provide the following statistics. >> Please let me know your comments. >> >> ``` >> postgres=# SELECT * from pg_stat_wal; >> -[ RECORD 1 ]-------+------------------------------ >> wal_records | 2000224 >> wal_fpi | 47 >> wal_bytes | 248216337 >> wal_buffers_full | 20954 >> wal_init_file | 8 >> wal_write_backend | 20960 >> wal_write_walwriter | 46 >> wal_write_time | 51 >> wal_sync_backend | 7 >> wal_sync_walwriter | 8 >> wal_sync_time | 0 >> stats_reset | 2020-10-20 11:04:51.307771+09 >> ``` >> >> 1. Basic statistics of WAL activity >> >> - wal_records: Total number of WAL records generated >> - wal_fpi: Total number of WAL full page images generated >> - wal_bytes: Total amount of WAL bytes generated >> >> To understand DB's performance, first, we will check the performance >> trends for the entire database instance. >> For example, if the number of wal_fpi becomes higher, users may tune >> "wal_compression", "checkpoint_timeout" and so on. >> >> Although users can check the above statistics via EXPLAIN, >> auto_explain, >> autovacuum and pg_stat_statements now, >> if users want to see the performance trends for the entire database, >> they must recalculate the statistics. >> >> I think it is useful to add the sum of the basic statistics. >> >> >> 2. WAL segment file creation >> >> - wal_init_file: Total number of WAL segment files created. >> >> To create a new WAL file may have an impact on the performance of >> a write-heavy workload generating lots of WAL. If this number is >> reported high, >> to reduce the number of this initialization, we can tune WAL-related >> parameters >> so that more "recycled" WAL files can be held. >> >> >> >> 3. Number of when WAL is flushed >> >> - wal_write_backend : Total number of WAL data written to the disk by >> backends >> - wal_write_walwriter : Total number of WAL data written to the disk >> by walwriter >> - wal_sync_backend : Total number of WAL data synced to the disk by >> backends >> - wal_sync_walwriter : Total number of WAL data synced to the disk by >> walwrite >> >> I think it's useful for tuning "synchronous_commit" and "commit_delay" >> for query executions. >> If the number of WAL is flushed is high, users can know >> "synchronous_commit" is useful for the workload. > > I just wonder how useful these counters are. Even without these > counters, > we already know synchronous_commit=off is likely to cause the better > performance (but has the risk of data loss). So ISTM that these > counters are > not so useful when tuning synchronous_commit. Thanks, my understanding was wrong. I agreed that your comments. I merged the statistics of *_backend and *_walwriter. I think the sum of them is useful to calculate the average per write/sync time. For example, per write time is equals wal_write_time / wal_write. Regards, -- Masahiro Ikeda NTT DATA CORPORATION -
Re: Add statistics to pg_stat_wal view for wal related parameter tuning
Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> — 2020-11-12T05:58:59Z
On 2020/11/06 10:25, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: > On 2020-10-30 11:50, Fujii Masao wrote: >> On 2020/10/29 17:03, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Thanks for your comments and advice. I updated the patch. >>> >>> On 2020-10-21 18:03, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: >>>> At Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:11:29 +0900, Masahiro Ikeda >>>> <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> wrote in >>>>> On 2020-10-20 12:46, Amit Kapila wrote: >>>>> > I see that we also need to add extra code to capture these stats (some >>>>> > of which is in performance-critical path especially in >>>>> > XLogInsertRecord) which again makes me a bit uncomfortable. It might >>>>> > be that it is all fine as it is very important to collect these stats >>>>> > at cluster-level in spite that the same information can be gathered at >>>>> > statement-level to help customers but I don't see a very strong case >>>>> > for that in your proposal. >>>> >>>> We should avoid that duplication as possible even if the both number >>>> are important. >>>> >>>>> Also about performance, I thought there are few impacts because it >>>>> increments stats in memory. If I can implement to reuse pgWalUsage's >>>>> value which already collects these stats, there is no impact in >>>>> XLogInsertRecord. >>>>> For example, how about pg_stat_wal() calculates the accumulated >>>>> value of wal_records, wal_fpi, and wal_bytes to use pgWalUsage's >>>>> value? >>>> >>>> I don't think that works, but it would work that pgstat_send_wal() >>>> takes the difference of that values between two successive calls. >>>> >>>> WalUsage prevWalUsage; >>>> ... >>>> pgstat_send_wal() >>>> { >>>> .. >>>> /* fill in some values using pgWalUsage */ >>>> WalStats.m_wal_bytes = pgWalUsage.wal_bytes - prevWalUsage.wal_bytes; >>>> WalStats.m_wal_records = pgWalUsage.wal_records - prevWalUsage.wal_records; >>>> WalStats.m_wal_wal_fpi = pgWalUsage.wal_fpi - prevWalUsage.wal_fpi; >>>> ... >>>> pgstat_send(&WalStats, sizeof(WalStats)); >>>> >>>> /* remember the current numbers */ >>>> prevWalUsage = pgWalUsage; >>> >>> Thanks for Horiguchi-san's advice, I changed to reuse pgWalUsage >>> which is already defined and eliminates the extra overhead. >> >> + /* fill in some values using pgWalUsage */ >> + WalStats.m_wal_bytes = pgWalUsage.wal_bytes - prevWalUsage.wal_bytes; >> + WalStats.m_wal_records = pgWalUsage.wal_records - prevWalUsage.wal_records; >> + WalStats.m_wal_fpi = pgWalUsage.wal_fpi - prevWalUsage.wal_fpi; >> >> It's better to use WalUsageAccumDiff() here? > > Yes, thanks. I fixed it. > >> prevWalUsage needs to be initialized with pgWalUsage? >> >> + if (AmWalWriterProcess()){ >> + WalStats.m_wal_write_walwriter++; >> + } >> + else >> + { >> + WalStats.m_wal_write_backend++; >> + } >> >> I think that it's better not to separate m_wal_write_xxx into two for >> walwriter and other processes. Instead, we can use one m_wal_write_xxx >> counter and make pgstat_send_wal() send also the process type to >> the stats collector. Then the stats collector can accumulate the counters >> per process type if necessary. If we adopt this approach, we can easily >> extend pg_stat_wal so that any fields can be reported per process type. > > I'll remove the above source code because these counters are not useful. > > > On 2020-10-30 12:00, Fujii Masao wrote: >> On 2020/10/20 11:31, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I think we need to add some statistics to pg_stat_wal view. >>> >>> Although there are some parameter related WAL, >>> there are few statistics for tuning them. >>> >>> I think it's better to provide the following statistics. >>> Please let me know your comments. >>> >>> ``` >>> postgres=# SELECT * from pg_stat_wal; >>> -[ RECORD 1 ]-------+------------------------------ >>> wal_records | 2000224 >>> wal_fpi | 47 >>> wal_bytes | 248216337 >>> wal_buffers_full | 20954 >>> wal_init_file | 8 >>> wal_write_backend | 20960 >>> wal_write_walwriter | 46 >>> wal_write_time | 51 >>> wal_sync_backend | 7 >>> wal_sync_walwriter | 8 >>> wal_sync_time | 0 >>> stats_reset | 2020-10-20 11:04:51.307771+09 >>> ``` >>> >>> 1. Basic statistics of WAL activity >>> >>> - wal_records: Total number of WAL records generated >>> - wal_fpi: Total number of WAL full page images generated >>> - wal_bytes: Total amount of WAL bytes generated >>> >>> To understand DB's performance, first, we will check the performance >>> trends for the entire database instance. >>> For example, if the number of wal_fpi becomes higher, users may tune >>> "wal_compression", "checkpoint_timeout" and so on. >>> >>> Although users can check the above statistics via EXPLAIN, auto_explain, >>> autovacuum and pg_stat_statements now, >>> if users want to see the performance trends for the entire database, >>> they must recalculate the statistics. >>> >>> I think it is useful to add the sum of the basic statistics. >>> >>> >>> 2. WAL segment file creation >>> >>> - wal_init_file: Total number of WAL segment files created. >>> >>> To create a new WAL file may have an impact on the performance of >>> a write-heavy workload generating lots of WAL. If this number is reported high, >>> to reduce the number of this initialization, we can tune WAL-related parameters >>> so that more "recycled" WAL files can be held. >>> >>> >>> >>> 3. Number of when WAL is flushed >>> >>> - wal_write_backend : Total number of WAL data written to the disk by backends >>> - wal_write_walwriter : Total number of WAL data written to the disk by walwriter >>> - wal_sync_backend : Total number of WAL data synced to the disk by backends >>> - wal_sync_walwriter : Total number of WAL data synced to the disk by walwrite >>> >>> I think it's useful for tuning "synchronous_commit" and "commit_delay" for query executions. >>> If the number of WAL is flushed is high, users can know "synchronous_commit" is useful for the workload. >> >> I just wonder how useful these counters are. Even without these counters, >> we already know synchronous_commit=off is likely to cause the better >> performance (but has the risk of data loss). So ISTM that these counters are >> not so useful when tuning synchronous_commit. > > Thanks, my understanding was wrong. > I agreed that your comments. > > I merged the statistics of *_backend and *_walwriter. > I think the sum of them is useful to calculate the average per write/sync time. > For example, per write time is equals wal_write_time / wal_write. Understood. Thanks for updating the patch! patching file src/include/catalog/pg_proc.dat Hunk #1 FAILED at 5491. 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/include/catalog/pg_proc.dat.rej I got this failure when applying the patch. Could you update the patch? - Number of times WAL data was written to the disk because WAL buffers got full + Total number of times WAL data written to the disk because WAL buffers got full Isn't "was" necessary between "data" and "written"? + <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition"> + <structfield>wal_bytes</structfield> <type>bigint</type> Shouldn't the type of wal_bytes be numeric because the total number of WAL bytes can exceed the range of bigint? I think that the type of pg_stat_statements.wal_bytes is also numeric for the same reason. + <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition"> + <structfield>wal_write_time</structfield> <type>bigint</type> Shouldn't the type of wal_xxx_time be double precision, like pg_stat_database.blk_write_time? Even when fsync is set to off or wal_sync_method is set to open_sync, wal_sync is incremented. Isn't this behavior confusing? + Total amount of time that has been spent in the portion of + WAL data was written to disk by backend and walwriter, in milliseconds + (if <xref linkend="guc-track-io-timing"/> is enabled, otherwise zero) With the patch, track_io_timing controls both IO for data files and WAL files. But we may want to track only either of them. So it's better to extend track_io_timing so that we can specify the tracking target in the parameter? For example, we can make track_io_timing accept data, wal and all. Or we should introduce new GUC for WAL, e.g., track_wal_io_timing? Thought? I'm afraid that "by backend and walwriter" part can make us thinkg incorrectly that WAL writes by other processes like autovacuum are not tracked. Regards, -- Fujii Masao Advanced Computing Technology Center Research and Development Headquarters NTT DATA CORPORATION -
Re: Add statistics to pg_stat_wal view for wal related parameter tuning
Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> — 2020-11-12T07:27:36Z
On 2020/11/12 14:58, Fujii Masao wrote: > > > On 2020/11/06 10:25, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >> On 2020-10-30 11:50, Fujii Masao wrote: >>> On 2020/10/29 17:03, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Thanks for your comments and advice. I updated the patch. >>>> >>>> On 2020-10-21 18:03, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: >>>>> At Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:11:29 +0900, Masahiro Ikeda >>>>> <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> wrote in >>>>>> On 2020-10-20 12:46, Amit Kapila wrote: >>>>>> > I see that we also need to add extra code to capture these stats (some >>>>>> > of which is in performance-critical path especially in >>>>>> > XLogInsertRecord) which again makes me a bit uncomfortable. It might >>>>>> > be that it is all fine as it is very important to collect these stats >>>>>> > at cluster-level in spite that the same information can be gathered at >>>>>> > statement-level to help customers but I don't see a very strong case >>>>>> > for that in your proposal. >>>>> >>>>> We should avoid that duplication as possible even if the both number >>>>> are important. >>>>> >>>>>> Also about performance, I thought there are few impacts because it >>>>>> increments stats in memory. If I can implement to reuse pgWalUsage's >>>>>> value which already collects these stats, there is no impact in >>>>>> XLogInsertRecord. >>>>>> For example, how about pg_stat_wal() calculates the accumulated >>>>>> value of wal_records, wal_fpi, and wal_bytes to use pgWalUsage's >>>>>> value? >>>>> >>>>> I don't think that works, but it would work that pgstat_send_wal() >>>>> takes the difference of that values between two successive calls. >>>>> >>>>> WalUsage prevWalUsage; >>>>> ... >>>>> pgstat_send_wal() >>>>> { >>>>> .. >>>>> /* fill in some values using pgWalUsage */ >>>>> WalStats.m_wal_bytes = pgWalUsage.wal_bytes - prevWalUsage.wal_bytes; >>>>> WalStats.m_wal_records = pgWalUsage.wal_records - prevWalUsage.wal_records; >>>>> WalStats.m_wal_wal_fpi = pgWalUsage.wal_fpi - prevWalUsage.wal_fpi; >>>>> ... >>>>> pgstat_send(&WalStats, sizeof(WalStats)); >>>>> >>>>> /* remember the current numbers */ >>>>> prevWalUsage = pgWalUsage; >>>> >>>> Thanks for Horiguchi-san's advice, I changed to reuse pgWalUsage >>>> which is already defined and eliminates the extra overhead. >>> >>> + /* fill in some values using pgWalUsage */ >>> + WalStats.m_wal_bytes = pgWalUsage.wal_bytes - prevWalUsage.wal_bytes; >>> + WalStats.m_wal_records = pgWalUsage.wal_records - prevWalUsage.wal_records; >>> + WalStats.m_wal_fpi = pgWalUsage.wal_fpi - prevWalUsage.wal_fpi; >>> >>> It's better to use WalUsageAccumDiff() here? >> >> Yes, thanks. I fixed it. >> >>> prevWalUsage needs to be initialized with pgWalUsage? >>> >>> + if (AmWalWriterProcess()){ >>> + WalStats.m_wal_write_walwriter++; >>> + } >>> + else >>> + { >>> + WalStats.m_wal_write_backend++; >>> + } >>> >>> I think that it's better not to separate m_wal_write_xxx into two for >>> walwriter and other processes. Instead, we can use one m_wal_write_xxx >>> counter and make pgstat_send_wal() send also the process type to >>> the stats collector. Then the stats collector can accumulate the counters >>> per process type if necessary. If we adopt this approach, we can easily >>> extend pg_stat_wal so that any fields can be reported per process type. >> >> I'll remove the above source code because these counters are not useful. >> >> >> On 2020-10-30 12:00, Fujii Masao wrote: >>> On 2020/10/20 11:31, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think we need to add some statistics to pg_stat_wal view. >>>> >>>> Although there are some parameter related WAL, >>>> there are few statistics for tuning them. >>>> >>>> I think it's better to provide the following statistics. >>>> Please let me know your comments. >>>> >>>> ``` >>>> postgres=# SELECT * from pg_stat_wal; >>>> -[ RECORD 1 ]-------+------------------------------ >>>> wal_records | 2000224 >>>> wal_fpi | 47 >>>> wal_bytes | 248216337 >>>> wal_buffers_full | 20954 >>>> wal_init_file | 8 >>>> wal_write_backend | 20960 >>>> wal_write_walwriter | 46 >>>> wal_write_time | 51 >>>> wal_sync_backend | 7 >>>> wal_sync_walwriter | 8 >>>> wal_sync_time | 0 >>>> stats_reset | 2020-10-20 11:04:51.307771+09 >>>> ``` >>>> >>>> 1. Basic statistics of WAL activity >>>> >>>> - wal_records: Total number of WAL records generated >>>> - wal_fpi: Total number of WAL full page images generated >>>> - wal_bytes: Total amount of WAL bytes generated >>>> >>>> To understand DB's performance, first, we will check the performance >>>> trends for the entire database instance. >>>> For example, if the number of wal_fpi becomes higher, users may tune >>>> "wal_compression", "checkpoint_timeout" and so on. >>>> >>>> Although users can check the above statistics via EXPLAIN, auto_explain, >>>> autovacuum and pg_stat_statements now, >>>> if users want to see the performance trends for the entire database, >>>> they must recalculate the statistics. >>>> >>>> I think it is useful to add the sum of the basic statistics. >>>> >>>> >>>> 2. WAL segment file creation >>>> >>>> - wal_init_file: Total number of WAL segment files created. >>>> >>>> To create a new WAL file may have an impact on the performance of >>>> a write-heavy workload generating lots of WAL. If this number is reported high, >>>> to reduce the number of this initialization, we can tune WAL-related parameters >>>> so that more "recycled" WAL files can be held. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 3. Number of when WAL is flushed >>>> >>>> - wal_write_backend : Total number of WAL data written to the disk by backends >>>> - wal_write_walwriter : Total number of WAL data written to the disk by walwriter >>>> - wal_sync_backend : Total number of WAL data synced to the disk by backends >>>> - wal_sync_walwriter : Total number of WAL data synced to the disk by walwrite >>>> >>>> I think it's useful for tuning "synchronous_commit" and "commit_delay" for query executions. >>>> If the number of WAL is flushed is high, users can know "synchronous_commit" is useful for the workload. >>> >>> I just wonder how useful these counters are. Even without these counters, >>> we already know synchronous_commit=off is likely to cause the better >>> performance (but has the risk of data loss). So ISTM that these counters are >>> not so useful when tuning synchronous_commit. >> >> Thanks, my understanding was wrong. >> I agreed that your comments. >> >> I merged the statistics of *_backend and *_walwriter. >> I think the sum of them is useful to calculate the average per write/sync time. >> For example, per write time is equals wal_write_time / wal_write. > > Understood. > > Thanks for updating the patch! > > patching file src/include/catalog/pg_proc.dat > Hunk #1 FAILED at 5491. > 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/include/catalog/pg_proc.dat.rej > > I got this failure when applying the patch. Could you update the patch? > > > - Number of times WAL data was written to the disk because WAL buffers got full > + Total number of times WAL data written to the disk because WAL buffers got full > > Isn't "was" necessary between "data" and "written"? > > > + <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition"> > + <structfield>wal_bytes</structfield> <type>bigint</type> > > Shouldn't the type of wal_bytes be numeric because the total number of > WAL bytes can exceed the range of bigint? I think that the type of > pg_stat_statements.wal_bytes is also numeric for the same reason. > > > + <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition"> > + <structfield>wal_write_time</structfield> <type>bigint</type> > > Shouldn't the type of wal_xxx_time be double precision, > like pg_stat_database.blk_write_time? > > > Even when fsync is set to off or wal_sync_method is set to open_sync, > wal_sync is incremented. Isn't this behavior confusing? > > > + Total amount of time that has been spent in the portion of > + WAL data was written to disk by backend and walwriter, in milliseconds > + (if <xref linkend="guc-track-io-timing"/> is enabled, otherwise zero) > > With the patch, track_io_timing controls both IO for data files and > WAL files. But we may want to track only either of them. So it's better > to extend track_io_timing so that we can specify the tracking target > in the parameter? For example, we can make track_io_timing accept > data, wal and all. Or we should introduce new GUC for WAL, e.g., > track_wal_io_timing? Thought? > > I'm afraid that "by backend and walwriter" part can make us thinkg > incorrectly that WAL writes by other processes like autovacuum > are not tracked. pgstat_send_wal(void) { + /* fill in some values using pgWalUsage */ + WalUsage walusage; + memset(&walusage, 0, sizeof(WalUsage)); + WalUsageAccumDiff(&walusage, &pgWalUsage, &prevWalUsage); At the first call to pgstat_send_wal(), prevWalUsage has not been set to the previous value of pgWalUsage. So the calculation result of WalUsageAccumDiff() can be incorrect. To address this issue, prevWalUsage should be set to pgWalUsage or both should be initialized with 0 at the beginning of the process, for example? Regards, -- Fujii Masao Advanced Computing Technology Center Research and Development Headquarters NTT DATA CORPORATION -
Re: Add statistics to pg_stat_wal view for wal related parameter tuning
Movead <lchch1990@sina.cn> — 2020-11-13T03:32:23Z
>Now, pg_stat_wal supports reset all informantion in WalStats >using pg_stat_reset_shared('wal') function. >Isn't it enough? Yes it ok, sorry I miss this infomation. >> 3. I do not think it's a correct describe in document for >> 'wal_buffers_full'. >Where should I rewrite the description? If my understanding is not >correct, please let me know. Sorry I have not described it clearly, because I can not understand the meaning of this column after I read the describe in document. And now I read the source code of walwrite and found the place where 'wal_buffers_full' added is for a backend to wait a wal buffer which is occupied by other wal page, so the backend flush the old page in the wal buffer(after wait it can). So i think the origin decribe in document is not so in point, we can describe it such as 'Total number of times WAL data written to the disk because a backend yelled a wal buffer for an advanced wal page. Sorry if my understand is wrong. -
Re: Add statistics to pg_stat_wal view for wal related parameter tuning
Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> — 2020-11-16T07:33:05Z
On 2020-11-12 16:27, Fujii Masao wrote: > On 2020/11/12 14:58, Fujii Masao wrote: >> >> >> On 2020/11/06 10:25, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >>> On 2020-10-30 11:50, Fujii Masao wrote: >>>> On 2020/10/29 17:03, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for your comments and advice. I updated the patch. >>>>> >>>>> On 2020-10-21 18:03, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: >>>>>> At Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:11:29 +0900, Masahiro Ikeda >>>>>> <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> wrote in >>>>>>> On 2020-10-20 12:46, Amit Kapila wrote: >>>>>>> > I see that we also need to add extra code to capture these stats (some >>>>>>> > of which is in performance-critical path especially in >>>>>>> > XLogInsertRecord) which again makes me a bit uncomfortable. It might >>>>>>> > be that it is all fine as it is very important to collect these stats >>>>>>> > at cluster-level in spite that the same information can be gathered at >>>>>>> > statement-level to help customers but I don't see a very strong case >>>>>>> > for that in your proposal. >>>>>> >>>>>> We should avoid that duplication as possible even if the both >>>>>> number >>>>>> are important. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Also about performance, I thought there are few impacts because >>>>>>> it >>>>>>> increments stats in memory. If I can implement to reuse >>>>>>> pgWalUsage's >>>>>>> value which already collects these stats, there is no impact in >>>>>>> XLogInsertRecord. >>>>>>> For example, how about pg_stat_wal() calculates the accumulated >>>>>>> value of wal_records, wal_fpi, and wal_bytes to use pgWalUsage's >>>>>>> value? >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't think that works, but it would work that pgstat_send_wal() >>>>>> takes the difference of that values between two successive calls. >>>>>> >>>>>> WalUsage prevWalUsage; >>>>>> ... >>>>>> pgstat_send_wal() >>>>>> { >>>>>> .. >>>>>> /* fill in some values using pgWalUsage */ >>>>>> WalStats.m_wal_bytes = pgWalUsage.wal_bytes - >>>>>> prevWalUsage.wal_bytes; >>>>>> WalStats.m_wal_records = pgWalUsage.wal_records - >>>>>> prevWalUsage.wal_records; >>>>>> WalStats.m_wal_wal_fpi = pgWalUsage.wal_fpi - >>>>>> prevWalUsage.wal_fpi; >>>>>> ... >>>>>> pgstat_send(&WalStats, sizeof(WalStats)); >>>>>> >>>>>> /* remember the current numbers */ >>>>>> prevWalUsage = pgWalUsage; >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for Horiguchi-san's advice, I changed to reuse pgWalUsage >>>>> which is already defined and eliminates the extra overhead. >>>> >>>> + /* fill in some values using pgWalUsage */ >>>> + WalStats.m_wal_bytes = pgWalUsage.wal_bytes - >>>> prevWalUsage.wal_bytes; >>>> + WalStats.m_wal_records = pgWalUsage.wal_records - >>>> prevWalUsage.wal_records; >>>> + WalStats.m_wal_fpi = pgWalUsage.wal_fpi - prevWalUsage.wal_fpi; >>>> >>>> It's better to use WalUsageAccumDiff() here? >>> >>> Yes, thanks. I fixed it. >>> >>>> prevWalUsage needs to be initialized with pgWalUsage? >>>> >>>> + if (AmWalWriterProcess()){ >>>> + WalStats.m_wal_write_walwriter++; >>>> + } >>>> + else >>>> + { >>>> + WalStats.m_wal_write_backend++; >>>> + } >>>> >>>> I think that it's better not to separate m_wal_write_xxx into two >>>> for >>>> walwriter and other processes. Instead, we can use one >>>> m_wal_write_xxx >>>> counter and make pgstat_send_wal() send also the process type to >>>> the stats collector. Then the stats collector can accumulate the >>>> counters >>>> per process type if necessary. If we adopt this approach, we can >>>> easily >>>> extend pg_stat_wal so that any fields can be reported per process >>>> type. >>> >>> I'll remove the above source code because these counters are not >>> useful. >>> >>> >>> On 2020-10-30 12:00, Fujii Masao wrote: >>>> On 2020/10/20 11:31, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I think we need to add some statistics to pg_stat_wal view. >>>>> >>>>> Although there are some parameter related WAL, >>>>> there are few statistics for tuning them. >>>>> >>>>> I think it's better to provide the following statistics. >>>>> Please let me know your comments. >>>>> >>>>> ``` >>>>> postgres=# SELECT * from pg_stat_wal; >>>>> -[ RECORD 1 ]-------+------------------------------ >>>>> wal_records | 2000224 >>>>> wal_fpi | 47 >>>>> wal_bytes | 248216337 >>>>> wal_buffers_full | 20954 >>>>> wal_init_file | 8 >>>>> wal_write_backend | 20960 >>>>> wal_write_walwriter | 46 >>>>> wal_write_time | 51 >>>>> wal_sync_backend | 7 >>>>> wal_sync_walwriter | 8 >>>>> wal_sync_time | 0 >>>>> stats_reset | 2020-10-20 11:04:51.307771+09 >>>>> ``` >>>>> >>>>> 1. Basic statistics of WAL activity >>>>> >>>>> - wal_records: Total number of WAL records generated >>>>> - wal_fpi: Total number of WAL full page images generated >>>>> - wal_bytes: Total amount of WAL bytes generated >>>>> >>>>> To understand DB's performance, first, we will check the >>>>> performance >>>>> trends for the entire database instance. >>>>> For example, if the number of wal_fpi becomes higher, users may >>>>> tune >>>>> "wal_compression", "checkpoint_timeout" and so on. >>>>> >>>>> Although users can check the above statistics via EXPLAIN, >>>>> auto_explain, >>>>> autovacuum and pg_stat_statements now, >>>>> if users want to see the performance trends for the entire >>>>> database, >>>>> they must recalculate the statistics. >>>>> >>>>> I think it is useful to add the sum of the basic statistics. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2. WAL segment file creation >>>>> >>>>> - wal_init_file: Total number of WAL segment files created. >>>>> >>>>> To create a new WAL file may have an impact on the performance of >>>>> a write-heavy workload generating lots of WAL. If this number is >>>>> reported high, >>>>> to reduce the number of this initialization, we can tune >>>>> WAL-related parameters >>>>> so that more "recycled" WAL files can be held. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 3. Number of when WAL is flushed >>>>> >>>>> - wal_write_backend : Total number of WAL data written to the disk >>>>> by backends >>>>> - wal_write_walwriter : Total number of WAL data written to the >>>>> disk by walwriter >>>>> - wal_sync_backend : Total number of WAL data synced to the disk by >>>>> backends >>>>> - wal_sync_walwriter : Total number of WAL data synced to the disk >>>>> by walwrite >>>>> >>>>> I think it's useful for tuning "synchronous_commit" and >>>>> "commit_delay" for query executions. >>>>> If the number of WAL is flushed is high, users can know >>>>> "synchronous_commit" is useful for the workload. >>>> >>>> I just wonder how useful these counters are. Even without these >>>> counters, >>>> we already know synchronous_commit=off is likely to cause the better >>>> performance (but has the risk of data loss). So ISTM that these >>>> counters are >>>> not so useful when tuning synchronous_commit. >>> >>> Thanks, my understanding was wrong. >>> I agreed that your comments. >>> >>> I merged the statistics of *_backend and *_walwriter. >>> I think the sum of them is useful to calculate the average per >>> write/sync time. >>> For example, per write time is equals wal_write_time / wal_write. >> >> Understood. >> >> Thanks for updating the patch! >> >> patching file src/include/catalog/pg_proc.dat >> Hunk #1 FAILED at 5491. >> 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file >> src/include/catalog/pg_proc.dat.rej >> >> I got this failure when applying the patch. Could you update the >> patch? >> >> >> - Number of times WAL data was written to the disk because WAL >> buffers got full >> + Total number of times WAL data written to the disk because WAL >> buffers got full >> >> Isn't "was" necessary between "data" and "written"? >> >> >> + <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para >> role="column_definition"> >> + <structfield>wal_bytes</structfield> <type>bigint</type> >> >> Shouldn't the type of wal_bytes be numeric because the total number of >> WAL bytes can exceed the range of bigint? I think that the type of >> pg_stat_statements.wal_bytes is also numeric for the same reason. >> >> >> + <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para >> role="column_definition"> >> + <structfield>wal_write_time</structfield> <type>bigint</type> >> >> Shouldn't the type of wal_xxx_time be double precision, >> like pg_stat_database.blk_write_time? >> >> >> Even when fsync is set to off or wal_sync_method is set to open_sync, >> wal_sync is incremented. Isn't this behavior confusing? >> >> >> + Total amount of time that has been spent in the portion of >> + WAL data was written to disk by backend and walwriter, in >> milliseconds >> + (if <xref linkend="guc-track-io-timing"/> is enabled, >> otherwise zero) >> >> With the patch, track_io_timing controls both IO for data files and >> WAL files. But we may want to track only either of them. So it's >> better >> to extend track_io_timing so that we can specify the tracking target >> in the parameter? For example, we can make track_io_timing accept >> data, wal and all. Or we should introduce new GUC for WAL, e.g., >> track_wal_io_timing? Thought? >> >> I'm afraid that "by backend and walwriter" part can make us thinkg >> incorrectly that WAL writes by other processes like autovacuum >> are not tracked. > > pgstat_send_wal(void) > { > + /* fill in some values using pgWalUsage */ > + WalUsage walusage; > + memset(&walusage, 0, sizeof(WalUsage)); > + WalUsageAccumDiff(&walusage, &pgWalUsage, &prevWalUsage); > > At the first call to pgstat_send_wal(), prevWalUsage has not been set > to > the previous value of pgWalUsage. So the calculation result of > WalUsageAccumDiff() can be incorrect. To address this issue, > prevWalUsage should be set to pgWalUsage or both should be initialized > with 0 at the beginning of the process, for example? I forgot to handle it, thanks. Although I initialized it in pgstat_initialize(), if there is better way please let me know. Regards, -- Masahiro Ikeda NTT DATA CORPORATION -
Re: Add statistics to pg_stat_wal view for wal related parameter tuning
Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> — 2020-11-16T07:35:23Z
On 2020-11-12 14:58, Fujii Masao wrote: > On 2020/11/06 10:25, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >> On 2020-10-30 11:50, Fujii Masao wrote: >>> On 2020/10/29 17:03, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Thanks for your comments and advice. I updated the patch. >>>> >>>> On 2020-10-21 18:03, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: >>>>> At Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:11:29 +0900, Masahiro Ikeda >>>>> <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> wrote in >>>>>> On 2020-10-20 12:46, Amit Kapila wrote: >>>>>> > I see that we also need to add extra code to capture these stats (some >>>>>> > of which is in performance-critical path especially in >>>>>> > XLogInsertRecord) which again makes me a bit uncomfortable. It might >>>>>> > be that it is all fine as it is very important to collect these stats >>>>>> > at cluster-level in spite that the same information can be gathered at >>>>>> > statement-level to help customers but I don't see a very strong case >>>>>> > for that in your proposal. >>>>> >>>>> We should avoid that duplication as possible even if the both >>>>> number >>>>> are important. >>>>> >>>>>> Also about performance, I thought there are few impacts because it >>>>>> increments stats in memory. If I can implement to reuse >>>>>> pgWalUsage's >>>>>> value which already collects these stats, there is no impact in >>>>>> XLogInsertRecord. >>>>>> For example, how about pg_stat_wal() calculates the accumulated >>>>>> value of wal_records, wal_fpi, and wal_bytes to use pgWalUsage's >>>>>> value? >>>>> >>>>> I don't think that works, but it would work that pgstat_send_wal() >>>>> takes the difference of that values between two successive calls. >>>>> >>>>> WalUsage prevWalUsage; >>>>> ... >>>>> pgstat_send_wal() >>>>> { >>>>> .. >>>>> /* fill in some values using pgWalUsage */ >>>>> WalStats.m_wal_bytes = pgWalUsage.wal_bytes - >>>>> prevWalUsage.wal_bytes; >>>>> WalStats.m_wal_records = pgWalUsage.wal_records - >>>>> prevWalUsage.wal_records; >>>>> WalStats.m_wal_wal_fpi = pgWalUsage.wal_fpi - >>>>> prevWalUsage.wal_fpi; >>>>> ... >>>>> pgstat_send(&WalStats, sizeof(WalStats)); >>>>> >>>>> /* remember the current numbers */ >>>>> prevWalUsage = pgWalUsage; >>>> >>>> Thanks for Horiguchi-san's advice, I changed to reuse pgWalUsage >>>> which is already defined and eliminates the extra overhead. >>> >>> + /* fill in some values using pgWalUsage */ >>> + WalStats.m_wal_bytes = pgWalUsage.wal_bytes - >>> prevWalUsage.wal_bytes; >>> + WalStats.m_wal_records = pgWalUsage.wal_records - >>> prevWalUsage.wal_records; >>> + WalStats.m_wal_fpi = pgWalUsage.wal_fpi - prevWalUsage.wal_fpi; >>> >>> It's better to use WalUsageAccumDiff() here? >> >> Yes, thanks. I fixed it. >> >>> prevWalUsage needs to be initialized with pgWalUsage? >>> >>> + if (AmWalWriterProcess()){ >>> + WalStats.m_wal_write_walwriter++; >>> + } >>> + else >>> + { >>> + WalStats.m_wal_write_backend++; >>> + } >>> >>> I think that it's better not to separate m_wal_write_xxx into two for >>> walwriter and other processes. Instead, we can use one >>> m_wal_write_xxx >>> counter and make pgstat_send_wal() send also the process type to >>> the stats collector. Then the stats collector can accumulate the >>> counters >>> per process type if necessary. If we adopt this approach, we can >>> easily >>> extend pg_stat_wal so that any fields can be reported per process >>> type. >> >> I'll remove the above source code because these counters are not >> useful. >> >> >> On 2020-10-30 12:00, Fujii Masao wrote: >>> On 2020/10/20 11:31, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think we need to add some statistics to pg_stat_wal view. >>>> >>>> Although there are some parameter related WAL, >>>> there are few statistics for tuning them. >>>> >>>> I think it's better to provide the following statistics. >>>> Please let me know your comments. >>>> >>>> ``` >>>> postgres=# SELECT * from pg_stat_wal; >>>> -[ RECORD 1 ]-------+------------------------------ >>>> wal_records | 2000224 >>>> wal_fpi | 47 >>>> wal_bytes | 248216337 >>>> wal_buffers_full | 20954 >>>> wal_init_file | 8 >>>> wal_write_backend | 20960 >>>> wal_write_walwriter | 46 >>>> wal_write_time | 51 >>>> wal_sync_backend | 7 >>>> wal_sync_walwriter | 8 >>>> wal_sync_time | 0 >>>> stats_reset | 2020-10-20 11:04:51.307771+09 >>>> ``` >>>> >>>> 1. Basic statistics of WAL activity >>>> >>>> - wal_records: Total number of WAL records generated >>>> - wal_fpi: Total number of WAL full page images generated >>>> - wal_bytes: Total amount of WAL bytes generated >>>> >>>> To understand DB's performance, first, we will check the performance >>>> trends for the entire database instance. >>>> For example, if the number of wal_fpi becomes higher, users may tune >>>> "wal_compression", "checkpoint_timeout" and so on. >>>> >>>> Although users can check the above statistics via EXPLAIN, >>>> auto_explain, >>>> autovacuum and pg_stat_statements now, >>>> if users want to see the performance trends for the entire >>>> database, >>>> they must recalculate the statistics. >>>> >>>> I think it is useful to add the sum of the basic statistics. >>>> >>>> >>>> 2. WAL segment file creation >>>> >>>> - wal_init_file: Total number of WAL segment files created. >>>> >>>> To create a new WAL file may have an impact on the performance of >>>> a write-heavy workload generating lots of WAL. If this number is >>>> reported high, >>>> to reduce the number of this initialization, we can tune WAL-related >>>> parameters >>>> so that more "recycled" WAL files can be held. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 3. Number of when WAL is flushed >>>> >>>> - wal_write_backend : Total number of WAL data written to the disk >>>> by backends >>>> - wal_write_walwriter : Total number of WAL data written to the disk >>>> by walwriter >>>> - wal_sync_backend : Total number of WAL data synced to the disk by >>>> backends >>>> - wal_sync_walwriter : Total number of WAL data synced to the disk >>>> by walwrite >>>> >>>> I think it's useful for tuning "synchronous_commit" and >>>> "commit_delay" for query executions. >>>> If the number of WAL is flushed is high, users can know >>>> "synchronous_commit" is useful for the workload. >>> >>> I just wonder how useful these counters are. Even without these >>> counters, >>> we already know synchronous_commit=off is likely to cause the better >>> performance (but has the risk of data loss). So ISTM that these >>> counters are >>> not so useful when tuning synchronous_commit. >> >> Thanks, my understanding was wrong. >> I agreed that your comments. >> >> I merged the statistics of *_backend and *_walwriter. >> I think the sum of them is useful to calculate the average per >> write/sync time. >> For example, per write time is equals wal_write_time / wal_write. > > Understood. > > Thanks for updating the patch! Thanks for your comments. > patching file src/include/catalog/pg_proc.dat > Hunk #1 FAILED at 5491. > 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file > src/include/catalog/pg_proc.dat.rej > > I got this failure when applying the patch. Could you update the patch? Thanks, I updated the patch. > - Number of times WAL data was written to the disk because WAL > buffers got full > + Total number of times WAL data written to the disk because WAL > buffers got full > > Isn't "was" necessary between "data" and "written"? Yes, I fixed it. > + <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para > role="column_definition"> > + <structfield>wal_bytes</structfield> <type>bigint</type> > > Shouldn't the type of wal_bytes be numeric because the total number of > WAL bytes can exceed the range of bigint? I think that the type of > pg_stat_statements.wal_bytes is also numeric for the same reason. Thanks, I fixed it. Since I cast the type of wal_bytes from PgStat_Counter to uint64, I changed the type of PgStat_MsgWal and PgStat_WalStats too. > + <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para > role="column_definition"> > + <structfield>wal_write_time</structfield> <type>bigint</type> > > Shouldn't the type of wal_xxx_time be double precision, > like pg_stat_database.blk_write_time? Thanks, I changed it. > Even when fsync is set to off or wal_sync_method is set to open_sync, > wal_sync is incremented. Isn't this behavior confusing? > > > + Total amount of time that has been spent in the portion of > + WAL data was written to disk by backend and walwriter, in > milliseconds > + (if <xref linkend="guc-track-io-timing"/> is enabled, otherwise > zero) > > With the patch, track_io_timing controls both IO for data files and > WAL files. But we may want to track only either of them. So it's better > to extend track_io_timing so that we can specify the tracking target > in the parameter? For example, we can make track_io_timing accept > data, wal and all. Or we should introduce new GUC for WAL, e.g., > track_wal_io_timing? Thought? OK, I introduced the new GUC "track_wal_io_timing". > I'm afraid that "by backend and walwriter" part can make us thinkg > incorrectly that WAL writes by other processes like autovacuum > are not tracked. Sorry, I removed "by backend and walwriter". Regards, -- Masahiro Ikeda NTT DATA CORPORATION -
Re: Add statistics to pg_stat_wal view for wal related parameter tuning
Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> — 2020-11-16T09:24:10Z
On 2020-11-13 12:32, lchch1990@sina.cn wrote: >> Now, pg_stat_wal supports reset all informantion in WalStats >> using pg_stat_reset_shared('wal') function. >> Isn't it enough? > Yes it ok, sorry I miss this infomation. OK. >>> 3. I do not think it's a correct describe in document for >>> 'wal_buffers_full'. > >> Where should I rewrite the description? If my understanding is not >> correct, please let me know. > Sorry I have not described it clearly, because I can not understand > the meaning of this > column after I read the describe in document. > And now I read the source code of walwrite and found the place where > 'wal_buffers_full' > added is for a backend to wait a wal buffer which is occupied by other > wal page, so the > backend flush the old page in the wal buffer(after wait it can). > So i think the origin decribe in document is not so in point, we can > describe it such as > 'Total number of times WAL data written to the disk because a backend > yelled a wal buffer > for an advanced wal page. > > Sorry if my understand is wrong. Thanks for your comments. You're understanding is almost the same as mine. It describes when not only backends but also other backgrounds initialize a new wal page, wal buffer's space is already used and there is no space. > 'Total number of times WAL data written to the disk because a backend > yelled a wal buffer for an advanced wal page' Thanks for your suggestion. I wondered that users may confuse about how to use "wal_buffers_full" and how to tune parameters. I thought the reason which wal buffer has no space is important for users to tune the wal_buffers parameter. How about the following comments? 'Total number of times WAL data was written to the disk because WAL buffers got full when to initialize a new WAL page' Regards, -- Masahiro Ikeda NTT DATA CORPORATION -
Re: Add statistics to pg_stat_wal view for wal related parameter tuning
Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> — 2020-11-17T02:46:33Z
On 2020/11/16 16:35, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: > On 2020-11-12 14:58, Fujii Masao wrote: >> On 2020/11/06 10:25, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >>> On 2020-10-30 11:50, Fujii Masao wrote: >>>> On 2020/10/29 17:03, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for your comments and advice. I updated the patch. >>>>> >>>>> On 2020-10-21 18:03, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: >>>>>> At Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:11:29 +0900, Masahiro Ikeda >>>>>> <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> wrote in >>>>>>> On 2020-10-20 12:46, Amit Kapila wrote: >>>>>>> > I see that we also need to add extra code to capture these stats (some >>>>>>> > of which is in performance-critical path especially in >>>>>>> > XLogInsertRecord) which again makes me a bit uncomfortable. It might >>>>>>> > be that it is all fine as it is very important to collect these stats >>>>>>> > at cluster-level in spite that the same information can be gathered at >>>>>>> > statement-level to help customers but I don't see a very strong case >>>>>>> > for that in your proposal. >>>>>> >>>>>> We should avoid that duplication as possible even if the both number >>>>>> are important. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Also about performance, I thought there are few impacts because it >>>>>>> increments stats in memory. If I can implement to reuse pgWalUsage's >>>>>>> value which already collects these stats, there is no impact in >>>>>>> XLogInsertRecord. >>>>>>> For example, how about pg_stat_wal() calculates the accumulated >>>>>>> value of wal_records, wal_fpi, and wal_bytes to use pgWalUsage's >>>>>>> value? >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't think that works, but it would work that pgstat_send_wal() >>>>>> takes the difference of that values between two successive calls. >>>>>> >>>>>> WalUsage prevWalUsage; >>>>>> ... >>>>>> pgstat_send_wal() >>>>>> { >>>>>> .. >>>>>> /* fill in some values using pgWalUsage */ >>>>>> WalStats.m_wal_bytes = pgWalUsage.wal_bytes - prevWalUsage.wal_bytes; >>>>>> WalStats.m_wal_records = pgWalUsage.wal_records - prevWalUsage.wal_records; >>>>>> WalStats.m_wal_wal_fpi = pgWalUsage.wal_fpi - prevWalUsage.wal_fpi; >>>>>> ... >>>>>> pgstat_send(&WalStats, sizeof(WalStats)); >>>>>> >>>>>> /* remember the current numbers */ >>>>>> prevWalUsage = pgWalUsage; >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for Horiguchi-san's advice, I changed to reuse pgWalUsage >>>>> which is already defined and eliminates the extra overhead. >>>> >>>> + /* fill in some values using pgWalUsage */ >>>> + WalStats.m_wal_bytes = pgWalUsage.wal_bytes - prevWalUsage.wal_bytes; >>>> + WalStats.m_wal_records = pgWalUsage.wal_records - prevWalUsage.wal_records; >>>> + WalStats.m_wal_fpi = pgWalUsage.wal_fpi - prevWalUsage.wal_fpi; >>>> >>>> It's better to use WalUsageAccumDiff() here? >>> >>> Yes, thanks. I fixed it. >>> >>>> prevWalUsage needs to be initialized with pgWalUsage? >>>> >>>> + if (AmWalWriterProcess()){ >>>> + WalStats.m_wal_write_walwriter++; >>>> + } >>>> + else >>>> + { >>>> + WalStats.m_wal_write_backend++; >>>> + } >>>> >>>> I think that it's better not to separate m_wal_write_xxx into two for >>>> walwriter and other processes. Instead, we can use one m_wal_write_xxx >>>> counter and make pgstat_send_wal() send also the process type to >>>> the stats collector. Then the stats collector can accumulate the counters >>>> per process type if necessary. If we adopt this approach, we can easily >>>> extend pg_stat_wal so that any fields can be reported per process type. >>> >>> I'll remove the above source code because these counters are not useful. >>> >>> >>> On 2020-10-30 12:00, Fujii Masao wrote: >>>> On 2020/10/20 11:31, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I think we need to add some statistics to pg_stat_wal view. >>>>> >>>>> Although there are some parameter related WAL, >>>>> there are few statistics for tuning them. >>>>> >>>>> I think it's better to provide the following statistics. >>>>> Please let me know your comments. >>>>> >>>>> ``` >>>>> postgres=# SELECT * from pg_stat_wal; >>>>> -[ RECORD 1 ]-------+------------------------------ >>>>> wal_records | 2000224 >>>>> wal_fpi | 47 >>>>> wal_bytes | 248216337 >>>>> wal_buffers_full | 20954 >>>>> wal_init_file | 8 >>>>> wal_write_backend | 20960 >>>>> wal_write_walwriter | 46 >>>>> wal_write_time | 51 >>>>> wal_sync_backend | 7 >>>>> wal_sync_walwriter | 8 >>>>> wal_sync_time | 0 >>>>> stats_reset | 2020-10-20 11:04:51.307771+09 >>>>> ``` >>>>> >>>>> 1. Basic statistics of WAL activity >>>>> >>>>> - wal_records: Total number of WAL records generated >>>>> - wal_fpi: Total number of WAL full page images generated >>>>> - wal_bytes: Total amount of WAL bytes generated >>>>> >>>>> To understand DB's performance, first, we will check the performance >>>>> trends for the entire database instance. >>>>> For example, if the number of wal_fpi becomes higher, users may tune >>>>> "wal_compression", "checkpoint_timeout" and so on. >>>>> >>>>> Although users can check the above statistics via EXPLAIN, auto_explain, >>>>> autovacuum and pg_stat_statements now, >>>>> if users want to see the performance trends for the entire database, >>>>> they must recalculate the statistics. >>>>> >>>>> I think it is useful to add the sum of the basic statistics. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2. WAL segment file creation >>>>> >>>>> - wal_init_file: Total number of WAL segment files created. >>>>> >>>>> To create a new WAL file may have an impact on the performance of >>>>> a write-heavy workload generating lots of WAL. If this number is reported high, >>>>> to reduce the number of this initialization, we can tune WAL-related parameters >>>>> so that more "recycled" WAL files can be held. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 3. Number of when WAL is flushed >>>>> >>>>> - wal_write_backend : Total number of WAL data written to the disk by backends >>>>> - wal_write_walwriter : Total number of WAL data written to the disk by walwriter >>>>> - wal_sync_backend : Total number of WAL data synced to the disk by backends >>>>> - wal_sync_walwriter : Total number of WAL data synced to the disk by walwrite >>>>> >>>>> I think it's useful for tuning "synchronous_commit" and "commit_delay" for query executions. >>>>> If the number of WAL is flushed is high, users can know "synchronous_commit" is useful for the workload. >>>> >>>> I just wonder how useful these counters are. Even without these counters, >>>> we already know synchronous_commit=off is likely to cause the better >>>> performance (but has the risk of data loss). So ISTM that these counters are >>>> not so useful when tuning synchronous_commit. >>> >>> Thanks, my understanding was wrong. >>> I agreed that your comments. >>> >>> I merged the statistics of *_backend and *_walwriter. >>> I think the sum of them is useful to calculate the average per write/sync time. >>> For example, per write time is equals wal_write_time / wal_write. >> >> Understood. >> >> Thanks for updating the patch! > > Thanks for your comments. > >> patching file src/include/catalog/pg_proc.dat >> Hunk #1 FAILED at 5491. >> 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file >> src/include/catalog/pg_proc.dat.rej >> >> I got this failure when applying the patch. Could you update the patch? > > Thanks, I updated the patch. > >> - Number of times WAL data was written to the disk because WAL >> buffers got full >> + Total number of times WAL data written to the disk because WAL >> buffers got full >> >> Isn't "was" necessary between "data" and "written"? > > Yes, I fixed it. > >> + <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition"> >> + <structfield>wal_bytes</structfield> <type>bigint</type> >> >> Shouldn't the type of wal_bytes be numeric because the total number of >> WAL bytes can exceed the range of bigint? I think that the type of >> pg_stat_statements.wal_bytes is also numeric for the same reason. > > Thanks, I fixed it. > > Since I cast the type of wal_bytes from PgStat_Counter to uint64, > I changed the type of PgStat_MsgWal and PgStat_WalStats too. > >> + <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition"> >> + <structfield>wal_write_time</structfield> <type>bigint</type> >> >> Shouldn't the type of wal_xxx_time be double precision, >> like pg_stat_database.blk_write_time? > > Thanks, I changed it. > >> Even when fsync is set to off or wal_sync_method is set to open_sync, >> wal_sync is incremented. Isn't this behavior confusing? What do you think about this comment? I found that we discussed track-WAL-IO-timing feature at the past discussion about the similar feature [1]. But the feature was droppped from the proposal patch because there was the performance concern. So probably we need to revisit the past discussion and benchmark the performance. Thought? If track-WAL-IO-timing feature may cause performance regression, it might be an idea to extract wal_records, wal_fpi and wal_bytes parts from the patch and commit it at first. [1] https://postgr.es/m/CAJrrPGc6APFUGYNcPe4qcNxpL8gXKYv1KST+vwJcFtCSCEySnA@mail.gmail.com >> >> >> + Total amount of time that has been spent in the portion of >> + WAL data was written to disk by backend and walwriter, in milliseconds >> + (if <xref linkend="guc-track-io-timing"/> is enabled, otherwise zero) >> >> With the patch, track_io_timing controls both IO for data files and >> WAL files. But we may want to track only either of them. So it's better >> to extend track_io_timing so that we can specify the tracking target >> in the parameter? For example, we can make track_io_timing accept >> data, wal and all. Or we should introduce new GUC for WAL, e.g., >> track_wal_io_timing? Thought? > > OK, I introduced the new GUC "track_wal_io_timing". > >> I'm afraid that "by backend and walwriter" part can make us thinkg >> incorrectly that WAL writes by other processes like autovacuum >> are not tracked. > > Sorry, I removed "by backend and walwriter". Thanks for updating the patch! +WalUsage prevWalUsage; ISTM that we can declare this as static variable because it's used only in pgstat.c. + memset(&walusage, 0, sizeof(WalUsage)); + WalUsageAccumDiff(&walusage, &pgWalUsage, &prevWalUsage); This memset seems unnecessary. /* We assume this initializes to zeroes */ static const PgStat_MsgWal all_zeroes; This declaration of the variable should be placed around the top of pgstat_send_wal(). Regards, -- Fujii Masao Advanced Computing Technology Center Research and Development Headquarters NTT DATA CORPORATION -
Re: Add statistics to pg_stat_wal view for wal related parameter tuning
Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> — 2020-11-17T02:53:45Z
On 2020/11/16 18:24, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: > On 2020-11-13 12:32, lchch1990@sina.cn wrote: >>> Now, pg_stat_wal supports reset all informantion in WalStats >>> using pg_stat_reset_shared('wal') function. >>> Isn't it enough? >> Yes it ok, sorry I miss this infomation. > > OK. > >>>> 3. I do not think it's a correct describe in document for >>>> 'wal_buffers_full'. >> >>> Where should I rewrite the description? If my understanding is not >>> correct, please let me know. >> Sorry I have not described it clearly, because I can not understand >> the meaning of this >> column after I read the describe in document. >> And now I read the source code of walwrite and found the place where >> 'wal_buffers_full' >> added is for a backend to wait a wal buffer which is occupied by other >> wal page, so the >> backend flush the old page in the wal buffer(after wait it can). >> So i think the origin decribe in document is not so in point, we can >> describe it such as >> 'Total number of times WAL data written to the disk because a backend >> yelled a wal buffer >> for an advanced wal page. >> >> Sorry if my understand is wrong. > > Thanks for your comments. > > You're understanding is almost the same as mine. > It describes when not only backends but also other backgrounds initialize a new wal page, > wal buffer's space is already used and there is no space. > >> 'Total number of times WAL data written to the disk because a backend >> yelled a wal buffer for an advanced wal page' > > Thanks for your suggestion. > I wondered that users may confuse about how to use "wal_buffers_full" and how to tune parameters. > > I thought the reason which wal buffer has no space is > important for users to tune the wal_buffers parameter. > > How about the following comments? > > 'Total number of times WAL data was written to the disk because WAL buffers got full > when to initialize a new WAL page' Or what about the following? Total number of times WAL data was written to the disk, to claim the buffer page to insert new WAL data when the WAL buffers got filled up with unwritten WAL data. Regards, -- Fujii Masao Advanced Computing Technology Center Research and Development Headquarters NTT DATA CORPORATION -
Re: Add statistics to pg_stat_wal view for wal related parameter tuning
Movead <lchch1990@sina.cn> — 2020-11-17T03:53:37Z
>> Thanks for your comments. >> >> You're understanding is almost the same as mine. >> It describes when not only backends but also other backgrounds initialize a new wal page, >> wal buffer's space is already used and there is no space. >> >>> 'Total number of times WAL data written to the disk because a backend >>> yelled a wal buffer for an advanced wal page' >> >> Thanks for your suggestion. >> I wondered that users may confuse about how to use "wal_buffers_full" and how to tune parameters. >> >> I thought the reason which wal buffer has no space is >> important for users to tune the wal_buffers parameter. >> >> How about the following comments? >> >> 'Total number of times WAL data was written to the disk because WAL buffers got full >> when to initialize a new WAL page' >Or what about the following? >Total number of times WAL data was written to the disk, to claim the buffer page to insert new >WAL data when the WAL buffers got filled up with unwritten WAL data. As my understand we can not say 'full' because every wal page mapped a special wal buffer slot. When a wal page need to be write, but the buffer slot was occupied by other wal page. It need to wait the wal buffer slot released. So i think we should say it 'occupied' not 'full'. Maybe: Total number of times WAL data was written to the disk, to claim the buffer page to insert new WAL data when the special WAL buffer occupied by other page. Regards, Highgo Software (Canada/China/Pakistan) URL : www.highgo.ca EMAIL: mailto:movead(dot)li(at)highgo(dot)ca
-
Re: Add statistics to pg_stat_wal view for wal related parameter tuning
Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> — 2020-11-19T07:31:09Z
On 2020-11-17 11:46, Fujii Masao wrote: > On 2020/11/16 16:35, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >> On 2020-11-12 14:58, Fujii Masao wrote: >>> On 2020/11/06 10:25, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >>>> On 2020-10-30 11:50, Fujii Masao wrote: >>>>> On 2020/10/29 17:03, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for your comments and advice. I updated the patch. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2020-10-21 18:03, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: >>>>>>> At Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:11:29 +0900, Masahiro Ikeda >>>>>>> <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> wrote in >>>>>>>> On 2020-10-20 12:46, Amit Kapila wrote: >>>>>>>> > I see that we also need to add extra code to capture these stats (some >>>>>>>> > of which is in performance-critical path especially in >>>>>>>> > XLogInsertRecord) which again makes me a bit uncomfortable. It might >>>>>>>> > be that it is all fine as it is very important to collect these stats >>>>>>>> > at cluster-level in spite that the same information can be gathered at >>>>>>>> > statement-level to help customers but I don't see a very strong case >>>>>>>> > for that in your proposal. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We should avoid that duplication as possible even if the both >>>>>>> number >>>>>>> are important. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Also about performance, I thought there are few impacts because >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> increments stats in memory. If I can implement to reuse >>>>>>>> pgWalUsage's >>>>>>>> value which already collects these stats, there is no impact in >>>>>>>> XLogInsertRecord. >>>>>>>> For example, how about pg_stat_wal() calculates the accumulated >>>>>>>> value of wal_records, wal_fpi, and wal_bytes to use pgWalUsage's >>>>>>>> value? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't think that works, but it would work that >>>>>>> pgstat_send_wal() >>>>>>> takes the difference of that values between two successive calls. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WalUsage prevWalUsage; >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> pgstat_send_wal() >>>>>>> { >>>>>>> .. >>>>>>> /* fill in some values using pgWalUsage */ >>>>>>> WalStats.m_wal_bytes = pgWalUsage.wal_bytes - >>>>>>> prevWalUsage.wal_bytes; >>>>>>> WalStats.m_wal_records = pgWalUsage.wal_records - >>>>>>> prevWalUsage.wal_records; >>>>>>> WalStats.m_wal_wal_fpi = pgWalUsage.wal_fpi - >>>>>>> prevWalUsage.wal_fpi; >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> pgstat_send(&WalStats, sizeof(WalStats)); >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /* remember the current numbers */ >>>>>>> prevWalUsage = pgWalUsage; >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for Horiguchi-san's advice, I changed to reuse pgWalUsage >>>>>> which is already defined and eliminates the extra overhead. >>>>> >>>>> + /* fill in some values using pgWalUsage */ >>>>> + WalStats.m_wal_bytes = pgWalUsage.wal_bytes - >>>>> prevWalUsage.wal_bytes; >>>>> + WalStats.m_wal_records = pgWalUsage.wal_records - >>>>> prevWalUsage.wal_records; >>>>> + WalStats.m_wal_fpi = pgWalUsage.wal_fpi - >>>>> prevWalUsage.wal_fpi; >>>>> >>>>> It's better to use WalUsageAccumDiff() here? >>>> >>>> Yes, thanks. I fixed it. >>>> >>>>> prevWalUsage needs to be initialized with pgWalUsage? >>>>> >>>>> + if (AmWalWriterProcess()){ >>>>> + WalStats.m_wal_write_walwriter++; >>>>> + } >>>>> + else >>>>> + { >>>>> + WalStats.m_wal_write_backend++; >>>>> + } >>>>> >>>>> I think that it's better not to separate m_wal_write_xxx into two >>>>> for >>>>> walwriter and other processes. Instead, we can use one >>>>> m_wal_write_xxx >>>>> counter and make pgstat_send_wal() send also the process type to >>>>> the stats collector. Then the stats collector can accumulate the >>>>> counters >>>>> per process type if necessary. If we adopt this approach, we can >>>>> easily >>>>> extend pg_stat_wal so that any fields can be reported per process >>>>> type. >>>> >>>> I'll remove the above source code because these counters are not >>>> useful. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2020-10-30 12:00, Fujii Masao wrote: >>>>> On 2020/10/20 11:31, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> I think we need to add some statistics to pg_stat_wal view. >>>>>> >>>>>> Although there are some parameter related WAL, >>>>>> there are few statistics for tuning them. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think it's better to provide the following statistics. >>>>>> Please let me know your comments. >>>>>> >>>>>> ``` >>>>>> postgres=# SELECT * from pg_stat_wal; >>>>>> -[ RECORD 1 ]-------+------------------------------ >>>>>> wal_records | 2000224 >>>>>> wal_fpi | 47 >>>>>> wal_bytes | 248216337 >>>>>> wal_buffers_full | 20954 >>>>>> wal_init_file | 8 >>>>>> wal_write_backend | 20960 >>>>>> wal_write_walwriter | 46 >>>>>> wal_write_time | 51 >>>>>> wal_sync_backend | 7 >>>>>> wal_sync_walwriter | 8 >>>>>> wal_sync_time | 0 >>>>>> stats_reset | 2020-10-20 11:04:51.307771+09 >>>>>> ``` >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Basic statistics of WAL activity >>>>>> >>>>>> - wal_records: Total number of WAL records generated >>>>>> - wal_fpi: Total number of WAL full page images generated >>>>>> - wal_bytes: Total amount of WAL bytes generated >>>>>> >>>>>> To understand DB's performance, first, we will check the >>>>>> performance >>>>>> trends for the entire database instance. >>>>>> For example, if the number of wal_fpi becomes higher, users may >>>>>> tune >>>>>> "wal_compression", "checkpoint_timeout" and so on. >>>>>> >>>>>> Although users can check the above statistics via EXPLAIN, >>>>>> auto_explain, >>>>>> autovacuum and pg_stat_statements now, >>>>>> if users want to see the performance trends for the entire >>>>>> database, >>>>>> they must recalculate the statistics. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think it is useful to add the sum of the basic statistics. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. WAL segment file creation >>>>>> >>>>>> - wal_init_file: Total number of WAL segment files created. >>>>>> >>>>>> To create a new WAL file may have an impact on the performance of >>>>>> a write-heavy workload generating lots of WAL. If this number is >>>>>> reported high, >>>>>> to reduce the number of this initialization, we can tune >>>>>> WAL-related parameters >>>>>> so that more "recycled" WAL files can be held. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 3. Number of when WAL is flushed >>>>>> >>>>>> - wal_write_backend : Total number of WAL data written to the disk >>>>>> by backends >>>>>> - wal_write_walwriter : Total number of WAL data written to the >>>>>> disk by walwriter >>>>>> - wal_sync_backend : Total number of WAL data synced to the disk >>>>>> by backends >>>>>> - wal_sync_walwriter : Total number of WAL data synced to the disk >>>>>> by walwrite >>>>>> >>>>>> I think it's useful for tuning "synchronous_commit" and >>>>>> "commit_delay" for query executions. >>>>>> If the number of WAL is flushed is high, users can know >>>>>> "synchronous_commit" is useful for the workload. >>>>> >>>>> I just wonder how useful these counters are. Even without these >>>>> counters, >>>>> we already know synchronous_commit=off is likely to cause the >>>>> better >>>>> performance (but has the risk of data loss). So ISTM that these >>>>> counters are >>>>> not so useful when tuning synchronous_commit. >>>> >>>> Thanks, my understanding was wrong. >>>> I agreed that your comments. >>>> >>>> I merged the statistics of *_backend and *_walwriter. >>>> I think the sum of them is useful to calculate the average per >>>> write/sync time. >>>> For example, per write time is equals wal_write_time / wal_write. >>> >>> Understood. >>> >>> Thanks for updating the patch! >> >> Thanks for your comments. >> >>> patching file src/include/catalog/pg_proc.dat >>> Hunk #1 FAILED at 5491. >>> 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file >>> src/include/catalog/pg_proc.dat.rej >>> >>> I got this failure when applying the patch. Could you update the >>> patch? >> >> Thanks, I updated the patch. >> >>> - Number of times WAL data was written to the disk because WAL >>> buffers got full >>> + Total number of times WAL data written to the disk because >>> WAL >>> buffers got full >>> >>> Isn't "was" necessary between "data" and "written"? >> >> Yes, I fixed it. >> >>> + <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para >>> role="column_definition"> >>> + <structfield>wal_bytes</structfield> <type>bigint</type> >>> >>> Shouldn't the type of wal_bytes be numeric because the total number >>> of >>> WAL bytes can exceed the range of bigint? I think that the type of >>> pg_stat_statements.wal_bytes is also numeric for the same reason. >> >> Thanks, I fixed it. >> >> Since I cast the type of wal_bytes from PgStat_Counter to uint64, >> I changed the type of PgStat_MsgWal and PgStat_WalStats too. >> >>> + <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para >>> role="column_definition"> >>> + <structfield>wal_write_time</structfield> <type>bigint</type> >>> >>> Shouldn't the type of wal_xxx_time be double precision, >>> like pg_stat_database.blk_write_time? >> >> Thanks, I changed it. >> >>> Even when fsync is set to off or wal_sync_method is set to open_sync, >>> wal_sync is incremented. Isn't this behavior confusing? > > What do you think about this comment? Sorry, I'll change to increment wal_sync and wal_sync_time only if a specific fsync method is called. > I found that we discussed track-WAL-IO-timing feature at the past > discussion > about the similar feature [1]. But the feature was droppped from the > proposal > patch because there was the performance concern. So probably we need to > revisit the past discussion and benchmark the performance. Thought? > > If track-WAL-IO-timing feature may cause performance regression, > it might be an idea to extract wal_records, wal_fpi and wal_bytes parts > from the patch and commit it at first. > > [1] > https://postgr.es/m/CAJrrPGc6APFUGYNcPe4qcNxpL8gXKYv1KST+vwJcFtCSCEySnA@mail.gmail.com Thanks, I'll check the thread. I agree to add basic statistics at first and I attached the patch. >>> >>> >>> + Total amount of time that has been spent in the portion of >>> + WAL data was written to disk by backend and walwriter, in >>> milliseconds >>> + (if <xref linkend="guc-track-io-timing"/> is enabled, >>> otherwise zero) >>> >>> With the patch, track_io_timing controls both IO for data files and >>> WAL files. But we may want to track only either of them. So it's >>> better >>> to extend track_io_timing so that we can specify the tracking target >>> in the parameter? For example, we can make track_io_timing accept >>> data, wal and all. Or we should introduce new GUC for WAL, e.g., >>> track_wal_io_timing? Thought? >> >> OK, I introduced the new GUC "track_wal_io_timing". >> >>> I'm afraid that "by backend and walwriter" part can make us thinkg >>> incorrectly that WAL writes by other processes like autovacuum >>> are not tracked. >> >> Sorry, I removed "by backend and walwriter". > > Thanks for updating the patch! > > +WalUsage prevWalUsage; > > ISTM that we can declare this as static variable because > it's used only in pgstat.c. Thanks, I fixed it. > + memset(&walusage, 0, sizeof(WalUsage)); > + WalUsageAccumDiff(&walusage, &pgWalUsage, &prevWalUsage); > > This memset seems unnecessary. I couldn't understand why this memset is unnecessary. Since WalUsageAccumDiff not only calculates the difference but also adds the value, I thought walusage needs to be initialized. > /* We assume this initializes to zeroes */ > static const PgStat_MsgWal all_zeroes; > > This declaration of the variable should be placed around > the top of pgstat_send_wal(). Sorry, I fixed it. Regards, -- Masahiro Ikeda NTT DATA CORPORATION -
Re: Add statistics to pg_stat_wal view for wal related parameter tuning
Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> — 2020-11-19T08:03:20Z
On 2020-11-17 12:53, lchch1990@sina.cn wrote: >>> Thanks for your comments. >>> >>> You're understanding is almost the same as mine. >>> It describes when not only backends but also other backgrounds > initialize a new wal page, >>> wal buffer's space is already used and there is no space. >>> >>>> 'Total number of times WAL data written to the disk because a > backend >>>> yelled a wal buffer for an advanced wal page' >>> >>> Thanks for your suggestion. >>> I wondered that users may confuse about how to use > "wal_buffers_full" and how to tune parameters. >>> >>> I thought the reason which wal buffer has no space is >>> important for users to tune the wal_buffers parameter. >>> >>> How about the following comments? >>> >>> 'Total number of times WAL data was written to the disk because WAL > buffers got full >>> when to initialize a new WAL page' >> Or what about the following? >> Total number of times WAL data was written to the disk, to claim the > buffer page to insert new >> WAL data when the WAL buffers got filled up with unwritten WAL data. > As my understand we can not say 'full' because every wal page mapped a > special wal buffer slot. > When a wal page need to be write, but the buffer slot was occupied by > other wal page. It need to > wait the wal buffer slot released. So i think we should say it > 'occupied' not 'full'. > > Maybe: > Total number of times WAL data was written to the disk, to claim the > buffer page to insert new > WAL data when the special WAL buffer occupied by other page. OK, I will change the above sentence since there are some sentences like "space occupied by", "disk blocks occupied", and so on in the documents. Do we need to change the column name from "wal_buffers_full" to another name like "wal_buffers_all_occupied"? Regards -- Masahiro Ikeda NTT DATA CORPORATION
-
Re: Add statistics to pg_stat_wal view for wal related parameter tuning
Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> — 2020-11-25T11:19:36Z
On 2020/11/19 16:31, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: > On 2020-11-17 11:46, Fujii Masao wrote: >> On 2020/11/16 16:35, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >>> On 2020-11-12 14:58, Fujii Masao wrote: >>>> On 2020/11/06 10:25, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >>>>> On 2020-10-30 11:50, Fujii Masao wrote: >>>>>> On 2020/10/29 17:03, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for your comments and advice. I updated the patch. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2020-10-21 18:03, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: >>>>>>>> At Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:11:29 +0900, Masahiro Ikeda >>>>>>>> <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> wrote in >>>>>>>>> On 2020-10-20 12:46, Amit Kapila wrote: >>>>>>>>> > I see that we also need to add extra code to capture these stats (some >>>>>>>>> > of which is in performance-critical path especially in >>>>>>>>> > XLogInsertRecord) which again makes me a bit uncomfortable. It might >>>>>>>>> > be that it is all fine as it is very important to collect these stats >>>>>>>>> > at cluster-level in spite that the same information can be gathered at >>>>>>>>> > statement-level to help customers but I don't see a very strong case >>>>>>>>> > for that in your proposal. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We should avoid that duplication as possible even if the both number >>>>>>>> are important. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Also about performance, I thought there are few impacts because it >>>>>>>>> increments stats in memory. If I can implement to reuse pgWalUsage's >>>>>>>>> value which already collects these stats, there is no impact in >>>>>>>>> XLogInsertRecord. >>>>>>>>> For example, how about pg_stat_wal() calculates the accumulated >>>>>>>>> value of wal_records, wal_fpi, and wal_bytes to use pgWalUsage's >>>>>>>>> value? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't think that works, but it would work that pgstat_send_wal() >>>>>>>> takes the difference of that values between two successive calls. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> WalUsage prevWalUsage; >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> pgstat_send_wal() >>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>> .. >>>>>>>> /* fill in some values using pgWalUsage */ >>>>>>>> WalStats.m_wal_bytes = pgWalUsage.wal_bytes - prevWalUsage.wal_bytes; >>>>>>>> WalStats.m_wal_records = pgWalUsage.wal_records - prevWalUsage.wal_records; >>>>>>>> WalStats.m_wal_wal_fpi = pgWalUsage.wal_fpi - prevWalUsage.wal_fpi; >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> pgstat_send(&WalStats, sizeof(WalStats)); >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /* remember the current numbers */ >>>>>>>> prevWalUsage = pgWalUsage; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for Horiguchi-san's advice, I changed to reuse pgWalUsage >>>>>>> which is already defined and eliminates the extra overhead. >>>>>> >>>>>> + /* fill in some values using pgWalUsage */ >>>>>> + WalStats.m_wal_bytes = pgWalUsage.wal_bytes - prevWalUsage.wal_bytes; >>>>>> + WalStats.m_wal_records = pgWalUsage.wal_records - prevWalUsage.wal_records; >>>>>> + WalStats.m_wal_fpi = pgWalUsage.wal_fpi - prevWalUsage.wal_fpi; >>>>>> >>>>>> It's better to use WalUsageAccumDiff() here? >>>>> >>>>> Yes, thanks. I fixed it. >>>>> >>>>>> prevWalUsage needs to be initialized with pgWalUsage? >>>>>> >>>>>> + if (AmWalWriterProcess()){ >>>>>> + WalStats.m_wal_write_walwriter++; >>>>>> + } >>>>>> + else >>>>>> + { >>>>>> + WalStats.m_wal_write_backend++; >>>>>> + } >>>>>> >>>>>> I think that it's better not to separate m_wal_write_xxx into two for >>>>>> walwriter and other processes. Instead, we can use one m_wal_write_xxx >>>>>> counter and make pgstat_send_wal() send also the process type to >>>>>> the stats collector. Then the stats collector can accumulate the counters >>>>>> per process type if necessary. If we adopt this approach, we can easily >>>>>> extend pg_stat_wal so that any fields can be reported per process type. >>>>> >>>>> I'll remove the above source code because these counters are not useful. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2020-10-30 12:00, Fujii Masao wrote: >>>>>> On 2020/10/20 11:31, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think we need to add some statistics to pg_stat_wal view. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Although there are some parameter related WAL, >>>>>>> there are few statistics for tuning them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think it's better to provide the following statistics. >>>>>>> Please let me know your comments. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ``` >>>>>>> postgres=# SELECT * from pg_stat_wal; >>>>>>> -[ RECORD 1 ]-------+------------------------------ >>>>>>> wal_records | 2000224 >>>>>>> wal_fpi | 47 >>>>>>> wal_bytes | 248216337 >>>>>>> wal_buffers_full | 20954 >>>>>>> wal_init_file | 8 >>>>>>> wal_write_backend | 20960 >>>>>>> wal_write_walwriter | 46 >>>>>>> wal_write_time | 51 >>>>>>> wal_sync_backend | 7 >>>>>>> wal_sync_walwriter | 8 >>>>>>> wal_sync_time | 0 >>>>>>> stats_reset | 2020-10-20 11:04:51.307771+09 >>>>>>> ``` >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Basic statistics of WAL activity >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - wal_records: Total number of WAL records generated >>>>>>> - wal_fpi: Total number of WAL full page images generated >>>>>>> - wal_bytes: Total amount of WAL bytes generated >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To understand DB's performance, first, we will check the performance >>>>>>> trends for the entire database instance. >>>>>>> For example, if the number of wal_fpi becomes higher, users may tune >>>>>>> "wal_compression", "checkpoint_timeout" and so on. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Although users can check the above statistics via EXPLAIN, auto_explain, >>>>>>> autovacuum and pg_stat_statements now, >>>>>>> if users want to see the performance trends for the entire database, >>>>>>> they must recalculate the statistics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think it is useful to add the sum of the basic statistics. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2. WAL segment file creation >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - wal_init_file: Total number of WAL segment files created. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To create a new WAL file may have an impact on the performance of >>>>>>> a write-heavy workload generating lots of WAL. If this number is reported high, >>>>>>> to reduce the number of this initialization, we can tune WAL-related parameters >>>>>>> so that more "recycled" WAL files can be held. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 3. Number of when WAL is flushed >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - wal_write_backend : Total number of WAL data written to the disk by backends >>>>>>> - wal_write_walwriter : Total number of WAL data written to the disk by walwriter >>>>>>> - wal_sync_backend : Total number of WAL data synced to the disk by backends >>>>>>> - wal_sync_walwriter : Total number of WAL data synced to the disk by walwrite >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think it's useful for tuning "synchronous_commit" and "commit_delay" for query executions. >>>>>>> If the number of WAL is flushed is high, users can know "synchronous_commit" is useful for the workload. >>>>>> >>>>>> I just wonder how useful these counters are. Even without these counters, >>>>>> we already know synchronous_commit=off is likely to cause the better >>>>>> performance (but has the risk of data loss). So ISTM that these counters are >>>>>> not so useful when tuning synchronous_commit. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, my understanding was wrong. >>>>> I agreed that your comments. >>>>> >>>>> I merged the statistics of *_backend and *_walwriter. >>>>> I think the sum of them is useful to calculate the average per write/sync time. >>>>> For example, per write time is equals wal_write_time / wal_write. >>>> >>>> Understood. >>>> >>>> Thanks for updating the patch! >>> >>> Thanks for your comments. >>> >>>> patching file src/include/catalog/pg_proc.dat >>>> Hunk #1 FAILED at 5491. >>>> 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file >>>> src/include/catalog/pg_proc.dat.rej >>>> >>>> I got this failure when applying the patch. Could you update the patch? >>> >>> Thanks, I updated the patch. >>> >>>> - Number of times WAL data was written to the disk because WAL >>>> buffers got full >>>> + Total number of times WAL data written to the disk because WAL >>>> buffers got full >>>> >>>> Isn't "was" necessary between "data" and "written"? >>> >>> Yes, I fixed it. >>> >>>> + <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition"> >>>> + <structfield>wal_bytes</structfield> <type>bigint</type> >>>> >>>> Shouldn't the type of wal_bytes be numeric because the total number of >>>> WAL bytes can exceed the range of bigint? I think that the type of >>>> pg_stat_statements.wal_bytes is also numeric for the same reason. >>> >>> Thanks, I fixed it. >>> >>> Since I cast the type of wal_bytes from PgStat_Counter to uint64, >>> I changed the type of PgStat_MsgWal and PgStat_WalStats too. >>> >>>> + <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition"> >>>> + <structfield>wal_write_time</structfield> <type>bigint</type> >>>> >>>> Shouldn't the type of wal_xxx_time be double precision, >>>> like pg_stat_database.blk_write_time? >>> >>> Thanks, I changed it. >>> >>>> Even when fsync is set to off or wal_sync_method is set to open_sync, >>>> wal_sync is incremented. Isn't this behavior confusing? >> >> What do you think about this comment? > > Sorry, I'll change to increment wal_sync and wal_sync_time only > if a specific fsync method is called. > >> I found that we discussed track-WAL-IO-timing feature at the past discussion >> about the similar feature [1]. But the feature was droppped from the proposal >> patch because there was the performance concern. So probably we need to >> revisit the past discussion and benchmark the performance. Thought? >> >> If track-WAL-IO-timing feature may cause performance regression, >> it might be an idea to extract wal_records, wal_fpi and wal_bytes parts >> from the patch and commit it at first. >> >> [1] >> https://postgr.es/m/CAJrrPGc6APFUGYNcPe4qcNxpL8gXKYv1KST+vwJcFtCSCEySnA@mail.gmail.com > > Thanks, I'll check the thread. > I agree to add basic statistics at first and I attached the patch. Thanks! + /* Send WAL statistics */ + pgstat_send_wal(); This is not necessary because walwriter generates no WAL data? > >>>> >>>> >>>> + Total amount of time that has been spent in the portion of >>>> + WAL data was written to disk by backend and walwriter, in milliseconds >>>> + (if <xref linkend="guc-track-io-timing"/> is enabled, otherwise zero) >>>> >>>> With the patch, track_io_timing controls both IO for data files and >>>> WAL files. But we may want to track only either of them. So it's better >>>> to extend track_io_timing so that we can specify the tracking target >>>> in the parameter? For example, we can make track_io_timing accept >>>> data, wal and all. Or we should introduce new GUC for WAL, e.g., >>>> track_wal_io_timing? Thought? >>> >>> OK, I introduced the new GUC "track_wal_io_timing". >>> >>>> I'm afraid that "by backend and walwriter" part can make us thinkg >>>> incorrectly that WAL writes by other processes like autovacuum >>>> are not tracked. >>> >>> Sorry, I removed "by backend and walwriter". >> >> Thanks for updating the patch! >> >> +WalUsage prevWalUsage; >> >> ISTM that we can declare this as static variable because >> it's used only in pgstat.c. > > Thanks, I fixed it. > >> + memset(&walusage, 0, sizeof(WalUsage)); >> + WalUsageAccumDiff(&walusage, &pgWalUsage, &prevWalUsage); >> >> This memset seems unnecessary. > > I couldn't understand why this memset is unnecessary. > Since WalUsageAccumDiff not only calculates the difference but also adds the value, > I thought walusage needs to be initialized. Yes, you're right! Sorry for noise... Regards, -- Fujii Masao Advanced Computing Technology Center Research and Development Headquarters NTT DATA CORPORATION -
Re: Add statistics to pg_stat_wal view for wal related parameter tuning
Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> — 2020-11-26T07:07:37Z
On 2020-11-25 20:19, Fujii Masao wrote: > On 2020/11/19 16:31, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >> On 2020-11-17 11:46, Fujii Masao wrote: >>> On 2020/11/16 16:35, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >>>> On 2020-11-12 14:58, Fujii Masao wrote: >>>>> On 2020/11/06 10:25, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >>>>>> On 2020-10-30 11:50, Fujii Masao wrote: >>>>>>> On 2020/10/29 17:03, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for your comments and advice. I updated the patch. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2020-10-21 18:03, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: >>>>>>>>> At Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:11:29 +0900, Masahiro Ikeda >>>>>>>>> <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> wrote in >>>>>>>>>> On 2020-10-20 12:46, Amit Kapila wrote: >>>>>>>>>> > I see that we also need to add extra code to capture these stats (some >>>>>>>>>> > of which is in performance-critical path especially in >>>>>>>>>> > XLogInsertRecord) which again makes me a bit uncomfortable. It might >>>>>>>>>> > be that it is all fine as it is very important to collect these stats >>>>>>>>>> > at cluster-level in spite that the same information can be gathered at >>>>>>>>>> > statement-level to help customers but I don't see a very strong case >>>>>>>>>> > for that in your proposal. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We should avoid that duplication as possible even if the both >>>>>>>>> number >>>>>>>>> are important. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Also about performance, I thought there are few impacts >>>>>>>>>> because it >>>>>>>>>> increments stats in memory. If I can implement to reuse >>>>>>>>>> pgWalUsage's >>>>>>>>>> value which already collects these stats, there is no impact >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> XLogInsertRecord. >>>>>>>>>> For example, how about pg_stat_wal() calculates the >>>>>>>>>> accumulated >>>>>>>>>> value of wal_records, wal_fpi, and wal_bytes to use >>>>>>>>>> pgWalUsage's >>>>>>>>>> value? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't think that works, but it would work that >>>>>>>>> pgstat_send_wal() >>>>>>>>> takes the difference of that values between two successive >>>>>>>>> calls. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> WalUsage prevWalUsage; >>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> pgstat_send_wal() >>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>> .. >>>>>>>>> /* fill in some values using pgWalUsage */ >>>>>>>>> WalStats.m_wal_bytes = pgWalUsage.wal_bytes - >>>>>>>>> prevWalUsage.wal_bytes; >>>>>>>>> WalStats.m_wal_records = pgWalUsage.wal_records - >>>>>>>>> prevWalUsage.wal_records; >>>>>>>>> WalStats.m_wal_wal_fpi = pgWalUsage.wal_fpi - >>>>>>>>> prevWalUsage.wal_fpi; >>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> pgstat_send(&WalStats, sizeof(WalStats)); >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> /* remember the current numbers */ >>>>>>>>> prevWalUsage = pgWalUsage; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for Horiguchi-san's advice, I changed to reuse pgWalUsage >>>>>>>> which is already defined and eliminates the extra overhead. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> + /* fill in some values using pgWalUsage */ >>>>>>> + WalStats.m_wal_bytes = pgWalUsage.wal_bytes - >>>>>>> prevWalUsage.wal_bytes; >>>>>>> + WalStats.m_wal_records = pgWalUsage.wal_records - >>>>>>> prevWalUsage.wal_records; >>>>>>> + WalStats.m_wal_fpi = pgWalUsage.wal_fpi - >>>>>>> prevWalUsage.wal_fpi; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's better to use WalUsageAccumDiff() here? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, thanks. I fixed it. >>>>>> >>>>>>> prevWalUsage needs to be initialized with pgWalUsage? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> + if (AmWalWriterProcess()){ >>>>>>> + WalStats.m_wal_write_walwriter++; >>>>>>> + } >>>>>>> + else >>>>>>> + { >>>>>>> + WalStats.m_wal_write_backend++; >>>>>>> + } >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think that it's better not to separate m_wal_write_xxx into two >>>>>>> for >>>>>>> walwriter and other processes. Instead, we can use one >>>>>>> m_wal_write_xxx >>>>>>> counter and make pgstat_send_wal() send also the process type to >>>>>>> the stats collector. Then the stats collector can accumulate the >>>>>>> counters >>>>>>> per process type if necessary. If we adopt this approach, we can >>>>>>> easily >>>>>>> extend pg_stat_wal so that any fields can be reported per process >>>>>>> type. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'll remove the above source code because these counters are not >>>>>> useful. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2020-10-30 12:00, Fujii Masao wrote: >>>>>>> On 2020/10/20 11:31, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think we need to add some statistics to pg_stat_wal view. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Although there are some parameter related WAL, >>>>>>>> there are few statistics for tuning them. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think it's better to provide the following statistics. >>>>>>>> Please let me know your comments. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ``` >>>>>>>> postgres=# SELECT * from pg_stat_wal; >>>>>>>> -[ RECORD 1 ]-------+------------------------------ >>>>>>>> wal_records | 2000224 >>>>>>>> wal_fpi | 47 >>>>>>>> wal_bytes | 248216337 >>>>>>>> wal_buffers_full | 20954 >>>>>>>> wal_init_file | 8 >>>>>>>> wal_write_backend | 20960 >>>>>>>> wal_write_walwriter | 46 >>>>>>>> wal_write_time | 51 >>>>>>>> wal_sync_backend | 7 >>>>>>>> wal_sync_walwriter | 8 >>>>>>>> wal_sync_time | 0 >>>>>>>> stats_reset | 2020-10-20 11:04:51.307771+09 >>>>>>>> ``` >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. Basic statistics of WAL activity >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - wal_records: Total number of WAL records generated >>>>>>>> - wal_fpi: Total number of WAL full page images generated >>>>>>>> - wal_bytes: Total amount of WAL bytes generated >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To understand DB's performance, first, we will check the >>>>>>>> performance >>>>>>>> trends for the entire database instance. >>>>>>>> For example, if the number of wal_fpi becomes higher, users may >>>>>>>> tune >>>>>>>> "wal_compression", "checkpoint_timeout" and so on. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Although users can check the above statistics via EXPLAIN, >>>>>>>> auto_explain, >>>>>>>> autovacuum and pg_stat_statements now, >>>>>>>> if users want to see the performance trends for the entire >>>>>>>> database, >>>>>>>> they must recalculate the statistics. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think it is useful to add the sum of the basic statistics. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2. WAL segment file creation >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - wal_init_file: Total number of WAL segment files created. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To create a new WAL file may have an impact on the performance >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> a write-heavy workload generating lots of WAL. If this number is >>>>>>>> reported high, >>>>>>>> to reduce the number of this initialization, we can tune >>>>>>>> WAL-related parameters >>>>>>>> so that more "recycled" WAL files can be held. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 3. Number of when WAL is flushed >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - wal_write_backend : Total number of WAL data written to the >>>>>>>> disk by backends >>>>>>>> - wal_write_walwriter : Total number of WAL data written to the >>>>>>>> disk by walwriter >>>>>>>> - wal_sync_backend : Total number of WAL data synced to the disk >>>>>>>> by backends >>>>>>>> - wal_sync_walwriter : Total number of WAL data synced to the >>>>>>>> disk by walwrite >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think it's useful for tuning "synchronous_commit" and >>>>>>>> "commit_delay" for query executions. >>>>>>>> If the number of WAL is flushed is high, users can know >>>>>>>> "synchronous_commit" is useful for the workload. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I just wonder how useful these counters are. Even without these >>>>>>> counters, >>>>>>> we already know synchronous_commit=off is likely to cause the >>>>>>> better >>>>>>> performance (but has the risk of data loss). So ISTM that these >>>>>>> counters are >>>>>>> not so useful when tuning synchronous_commit. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, my understanding was wrong. >>>>>> I agreed that your comments. >>>>>> >>>>>> I merged the statistics of *_backend and *_walwriter. >>>>>> I think the sum of them is useful to calculate the average per >>>>>> write/sync time. >>>>>> For example, per write time is equals wal_write_time / wal_write. >>>>> >>>>> Understood. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for updating the patch! >>>> >>>> Thanks for your comments. >>>> >>>>> patching file src/include/catalog/pg_proc.dat >>>>> Hunk #1 FAILED at 5491. >>>>> 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file >>>>> src/include/catalog/pg_proc.dat.rej >>>>> >>>>> I got this failure when applying the patch. Could you update the >>>>> patch? >>>> >>>> Thanks, I updated the patch. >>>> >>>>> - Number of times WAL data was written to the disk because >>>>> WAL >>>>> buffers got full >>>>> + Total number of times WAL data written to the disk because >>>>> WAL >>>>> buffers got full >>>>> >>>>> Isn't "was" necessary between "data" and "written"? >>>> >>>> Yes, I fixed it. >>>> >>>>> + <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para >>>>> role="column_definition"> >>>>> + <structfield>wal_bytes</structfield> <type>bigint</type> >>>>> >>>>> Shouldn't the type of wal_bytes be numeric because the total number >>>>> of >>>>> WAL bytes can exceed the range of bigint? I think that the type of >>>>> pg_stat_statements.wal_bytes is also numeric for the same reason. >>>> >>>> Thanks, I fixed it. >>>> >>>> Since I cast the type of wal_bytes from PgStat_Counter to uint64, >>>> I changed the type of PgStat_MsgWal and PgStat_WalStats too. >>>> >>>>> + <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para >>>>> role="column_definition"> >>>>> + <structfield>wal_write_time</structfield> >>>>> <type>bigint</type> >>>>> >>>>> Shouldn't the type of wal_xxx_time be double precision, >>>>> like pg_stat_database.blk_write_time? >>>> >>>> Thanks, I changed it. >>>> >>>>> Even when fsync is set to off or wal_sync_method is set to >>>>> open_sync, >>>>> wal_sync is incremented. Isn't this behavior confusing? >>> >>> What do you think about this comment? >> >> Sorry, I'll change to increment wal_sync and wal_sync_time only >> if a specific fsync method is called. >> >>> I found that we discussed track-WAL-IO-timing feature at the past >>> discussion >>> about the similar feature [1]. But the feature was droppped from the >>> proposal >>> patch because there was the performance concern. So probably we need >>> to >>> revisit the past discussion and benchmark the performance. Thought? >>> >>> If track-WAL-IO-timing feature may cause performance regression, >>> it might be an idea to extract wal_records, wal_fpi and wal_bytes >>> parts >>> from the patch and commit it at first. >>> >>> [1] >>> https://postgr.es/m/CAJrrPGc6APFUGYNcPe4qcNxpL8gXKYv1KST+vwJcFtCSCEySnA@mail.gmail.com >> >> Thanks, I'll check the thread. >> I agree to add basic statistics at first and I attached the patch. > > Thanks! > > + /* Send WAL statistics */ > + pgstat_send_wal(); > > This is not necessary because walwriter generates no WAL data? No, it's not necessary. Thanks. I fixed it. Regards, -- Masahiro Ikeda NTT DATA CORPORATION -
Re: Add statistics to pg_stat_wal view for wal related parameter tuning
Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> — 2020-12-01T05:01:41Z
On 2020/11/26 16:07, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: > On 2020-11-25 20:19, Fujii Masao wrote: >> On 2020/11/19 16:31, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >>> On 2020-11-17 11:46, Fujii Masao wrote: >>>> On 2020/11/16 16:35, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >>>>> On 2020-11-12 14:58, Fujii Masao wrote: >>>>>> On 2020/11/06 10:25, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >>>>>>> On 2020-10-30 11:50, Fujii Masao wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2020/10/29 17:03, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for your comments and advice. I updated the patch. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 2020-10-21 18:03, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: >>>>>>>>>> At Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:11:29 +0900, Masahiro Ikeda >>>>>>>>>> <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>> On 2020-10-20 12:46, Amit Kapila wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> > I see that we also need to add extra code to capture these stats (some >>>>>>>>>>> > of which is in performance-critical path especially in >>>>>>>>>>> > XLogInsertRecord) which again makes me a bit uncomfortable. It might >>>>>>>>>>> > be that it is all fine as it is very important to collect these stats >>>>>>>>>>> > at cluster-level in spite that the same information can be gathered at >>>>>>>>>>> > statement-level to help customers but I don't see a very strong case >>>>>>>>>>> > for that in your proposal. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We should avoid that duplication as possible even if the both number >>>>>>>>>> are important. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Also about performance, I thought there are few impacts because it >>>>>>>>>>> increments stats in memory. If I can implement to reuse pgWalUsage's >>>>>>>>>>> value which already collects these stats, there is no impact in >>>>>>>>>>> XLogInsertRecord. >>>>>>>>>>> For example, how about pg_stat_wal() calculates the accumulated >>>>>>>>>>> value of wal_records, wal_fpi, and wal_bytes to use pgWalUsage's >>>>>>>>>>> value? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I don't think that works, but it would work that pgstat_send_wal() >>>>>>>>>> takes the difference of that values between two successive calls. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> WalUsage prevWalUsage; >>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>> pgstat_send_wal() >>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>> .. >>>>>>>>>> /* fill in some values using pgWalUsage */ >>>>>>>>>> WalStats.m_wal_bytes = pgWalUsage.wal_bytes - prevWalUsage.wal_bytes; >>>>>>>>>> WalStats.m_wal_records = pgWalUsage.wal_records - prevWalUsage.wal_records; >>>>>>>>>> WalStats.m_wal_wal_fpi = pgWalUsage.wal_fpi - prevWalUsage.wal_fpi; >>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>> pgstat_send(&WalStats, sizeof(WalStats)); >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> /* remember the current numbers */ >>>>>>>>>> prevWalUsage = pgWalUsage; >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for Horiguchi-san's advice, I changed to reuse pgWalUsage >>>>>>>>> which is already defined and eliminates the extra overhead. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> + /* fill in some values using pgWalUsage */ >>>>>>>> + WalStats.m_wal_bytes = pgWalUsage.wal_bytes - prevWalUsage.wal_bytes; >>>>>>>> + WalStats.m_wal_records = pgWalUsage.wal_records - prevWalUsage.wal_records; >>>>>>>> + WalStats.m_wal_fpi = pgWalUsage.wal_fpi - prevWalUsage.wal_fpi; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's better to use WalUsageAccumDiff() here? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, thanks. I fixed it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> prevWalUsage needs to be initialized with pgWalUsage? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> + if (AmWalWriterProcess()){ >>>>>>>> + WalStats.m_wal_write_walwriter++; >>>>>>>> + } >>>>>>>> + else >>>>>>>> + { >>>>>>>> + WalStats.m_wal_write_backend++; >>>>>>>> + } >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think that it's better not to separate m_wal_write_xxx into two for >>>>>>>> walwriter and other processes. Instead, we can use one m_wal_write_xxx >>>>>>>> counter and make pgstat_send_wal() send also the process type to >>>>>>>> the stats collector. Then the stats collector can accumulate the counters >>>>>>>> per process type if necessary. If we adopt this approach, we can easily >>>>>>>> extend pg_stat_wal so that any fields can be reported per process type. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'll remove the above source code because these counters are not useful. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2020-10-30 12:00, Fujii Masao wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2020/10/20 11:31, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think we need to add some statistics to pg_stat_wal view. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Although there are some parameter related WAL, >>>>>>>>> there are few statistics for tuning them. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think it's better to provide the following statistics. >>>>>>>>> Please let me know your comments. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ``` >>>>>>>>> postgres=# SELECT * from pg_stat_wal; >>>>>>>>> -[ RECORD 1 ]-------+------------------------------ >>>>>>>>> wal_records | 2000224 >>>>>>>>> wal_fpi | 47 >>>>>>>>> wal_bytes | 248216337 >>>>>>>>> wal_buffers_full | 20954 >>>>>>>>> wal_init_file | 8 >>>>>>>>> wal_write_backend | 20960 >>>>>>>>> wal_write_walwriter | 46 >>>>>>>>> wal_write_time | 51 >>>>>>>>> wal_sync_backend | 7 >>>>>>>>> wal_sync_walwriter | 8 >>>>>>>>> wal_sync_time | 0 >>>>>>>>> stats_reset | 2020-10-20 11:04:51.307771+09 >>>>>>>>> ``` >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 1. Basic statistics of WAL activity >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - wal_records: Total number of WAL records generated >>>>>>>>> - wal_fpi: Total number of WAL full page images generated >>>>>>>>> - wal_bytes: Total amount of WAL bytes generated >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> To understand DB's performance, first, we will check the performance >>>>>>>>> trends for the entire database instance. >>>>>>>>> For example, if the number of wal_fpi becomes higher, users may tune >>>>>>>>> "wal_compression", "checkpoint_timeout" and so on. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Although users can check the above statistics via EXPLAIN, auto_explain, >>>>>>>>> autovacuum and pg_stat_statements now, >>>>>>>>> if users want to see the performance trends for the entire database, >>>>>>>>> they must recalculate the statistics. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think it is useful to add the sum of the basic statistics. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2. WAL segment file creation >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - wal_init_file: Total number of WAL segment files created. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> To create a new WAL file may have an impact on the performance of >>>>>>>>> a write-heavy workload generating lots of WAL. If this number is reported high, >>>>>>>>> to reduce the number of this initialization, we can tune WAL-related parameters >>>>>>>>> so that more "recycled" WAL files can be held. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 3. Number of when WAL is flushed >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> - wal_write_backend : Total number of WAL data written to the disk by backends >>>>>>>>> - wal_write_walwriter : Total number of WAL data written to the disk by walwriter >>>>>>>>> - wal_sync_backend : Total number of WAL data synced to the disk by backends >>>>>>>>> - wal_sync_walwriter : Total number of WAL data synced to the disk by walwrite >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think it's useful for tuning "synchronous_commit" and "commit_delay" for query executions. >>>>>>>>> If the number of WAL is flushed is high, users can know "synchronous_commit" is useful for the workload. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I just wonder how useful these counters are. Even without these counters, >>>>>>>> we already know synchronous_commit=off is likely to cause the better >>>>>>>> performance (but has the risk of data loss). So ISTM that these counters are >>>>>>>> not so useful when tuning synchronous_commit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, my understanding was wrong. >>>>>>> I agreed that your comments. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I merged the statistics of *_backend and *_walwriter. >>>>>>> I think the sum of them is useful to calculate the average per write/sync time. >>>>>>> For example, per write time is equals wal_write_time / wal_write. >>>>>> >>>>>> Understood. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for updating the patch! >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for your comments. >>>>> >>>>>> patching file src/include/catalog/pg_proc.dat >>>>>> Hunk #1 FAILED at 5491. >>>>>> 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file >>>>>> src/include/catalog/pg_proc.dat.rej >>>>>> >>>>>> I got this failure when applying the patch. Could you update the patch? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, I updated the patch. >>>>> >>>>>> - Number of times WAL data was written to the disk because WAL >>>>>> buffers got full >>>>>> + Total number of times WAL data written to the disk because WAL >>>>>> buffers got full >>>>>> >>>>>> Isn't "was" necessary between "data" and "written"? >>>>> >>>>> Yes, I fixed it. >>>>> >>>>>> + <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition"> >>>>>> + <structfield>wal_bytes</structfield> <type>bigint</type> >>>>>> >>>>>> Shouldn't the type of wal_bytes be numeric because the total number of >>>>>> WAL bytes can exceed the range of bigint? I think that the type of >>>>>> pg_stat_statements.wal_bytes is also numeric for the same reason. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, I fixed it. >>>>> >>>>> Since I cast the type of wal_bytes from PgStat_Counter to uint64, >>>>> I changed the type of PgStat_MsgWal and PgStat_WalStats too. >>>>> >>>>>> + <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition"> >>>>>> + <structfield>wal_write_time</structfield> <type>bigint</type> >>>>>> >>>>>> Shouldn't the type of wal_xxx_time be double precision, >>>>>> like pg_stat_database.blk_write_time? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, I changed it. >>>>> >>>>>> Even when fsync is set to off or wal_sync_method is set to open_sync, >>>>>> wal_sync is incremented. Isn't this behavior confusing? >>>> >>>> What do you think about this comment? >>> >>> Sorry, I'll change to increment wal_sync and wal_sync_time only >>> if a specific fsync method is called. >>> >>>> I found that we discussed track-WAL-IO-timing feature at the past discussion >>>> about the similar feature [1]. But the feature was droppped from the proposal >>>> patch because there was the performance concern. So probably we need to >>>> revisit the past discussion and benchmark the performance. Thought? >>>> >>>> If track-WAL-IO-timing feature may cause performance regression, >>>> it might be an idea to extract wal_records, wal_fpi and wal_bytes parts >>>> from the patch and commit it at first. >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> https://postgr.es/m/CAJrrPGc6APFUGYNcPe4qcNxpL8gXKYv1KST+vwJcFtCSCEySnA@mail.gmail.com >>> >>> Thanks, I'll check the thread. >>> I agree to add basic statistics at first and I attached the patch. >> >> Thanks! >> >> + /* Send WAL statistics */ >> + pgstat_send_wal(); >> >> This is not necessary because walwriter generates no WAL data? > > No, it's not necessary. > Thanks. I fixed it. Thanks for updating the patch! I applied cosmetic changes to it. For example, I added more comments. Patch attached. Barring no objection, I will commit this patch. Regards, -- Fujii Masao Advanced Computing Technology Center Research and Development Headquarters NTT DATA CORPORATION -
Re: Add statistics to pg_stat_wal view for wal related parameter tuning
Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> — 2020-12-02T04:52:43Z
On 2020/12/01 14:01, Fujii Masao wrote: > > > On 2020/11/26 16:07, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >> On 2020-11-25 20:19, Fujii Masao wrote: >>> On 2020/11/19 16:31, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >>>> On 2020-11-17 11:46, Fujii Masao wrote: >>>>> On 2020/11/16 16:35, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >>>>>> On 2020-11-12 14:58, Fujii Masao wrote: >>>>>>> On 2020/11/06 10:25, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2020-10-30 11:50, Fujii Masao wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2020/10/29 17:03, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your comments and advice. I updated the patch. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 2020-10-21 18:03, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> At Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:11:29 +0900, Masahiro Ikeda >>>>>>>>>>> <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> wrote in >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2020-10-20 12:46, Amit Kapila wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> > I see that we also need to add extra code to capture these stats (some >>>>>>>>>>>> > of which is in performance-critical path especially in >>>>>>>>>>>> > XLogInsertRecord) which again makes me a bit uncomfortable. It might >>>>>>>>>>>> > be that it is all fine as it is very important to collect these stats >>>>>>>>>>>> > at cluster-level in spite that the same information can be gathered at >>>>>>>>>>>> > statement-level to help customers but I don't see a very strong case >>>>>>>>>>>> > for that in your proposal. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> We should avoid that duplication as possible even if the both number >>>>>>>>>>> are important. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Also about performance, I thought there are few impacts because it >>>>>>>>>>>> increments stats in memory. If I can implement to reuse pgWalUsage's >>>>>>>>>>>> value which already collects these stats, there is no impact in >>>>>>>>>>>> XLogInsertRecord. >>>>>>>>>>>> For example, how about pg_stat_wal() calculates the accumulated >>>>>>>>>>>> value of wal_records, wal_fpi, and wal_bytes to use pgWalUsage's >>>>>>>>>>>> value? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't think that works, but it would work that pgstat_send_wal() >>>>>>>>>>> takes the difference of that values between two successive calls. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> WalUsage prevWalUsage; >>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>> pgstat_send_wal() >>>>>>>>>>> { >>>>>>>>>>> .. >>>>>>>>>>> /* fill in some values using pgWalUsage */ >>>>>>>>>>> WalStats.m_wal_bytes = pgWalUsage.wal_bytes - prevWalUsage.wal_bytes; >>>>>>>>>>> WalStats.m_wal_records = pgWalUsage.wal_records - prevWalUsage.wal_records; >>>>>>>>>>> WalStats.m_wal_wal_fpi = pgWalUsage.wal_fpi - prevWalUsage.wal_fpi; >>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>> pgstat_send(&WalStats, sizeof(WalStats)); >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> /* remember the current numbers */ >>>>>>>>>>> prevWalUsage = pgWalUsage; >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks for Horiguchi-san's advice, I changed to reuse pgWalUsage >>>>>>>>>> which is already defined and eliminates the extra overhead. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> + /* fill in some values using pgWalUsage */ >>>>>>>>> + WalStats.m_wal_bytes = pgWalUsage.wal_bytes - prevWalUsage.wal_bytes; >>>>>>>>> + WalStats.m_wal_records = pgWalUsage.wal_records - prevWalUsage.wal_records; >>>>>>>>> + WalStats.m_wal_fpi = pgWalUsage.wal_fpi - prevWalUsage.wal_fpi; >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It's better to use WalUsageAccumDiff() here? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes, thanks. I fixed it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> prevWalUsage needs to be initialized with pgWalUsage? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> + if (AmWalWriterProcess()){ >>>>>>>>> + WalStats.m_wal_write_walwriter++; >>>>>>>>> + } >>>>>>>>> + else >>>>>>>>> + { >>>>>>>>> + WalStats.m_wal_write_backend++; >>>>>>>>> + } >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think that it's better not to separate m_wal_write_xxx into two for >>>>>>>>> walwriter and other processes. Instead, we can use one m_wal_write_xxx >>>>>>>>> counter and make pgstat_send_wal() send also the process type to >>>>>>>>> the stats collector. Then the stats collector can accumulate the counters >>>>>>>>> per process type if necessary. If we adopt this approach, we can easily >>>>>>>>> extend pg_stat_wal so that any fields can be reported per process type. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'll remove the above source code because these counters are not useful. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2020-10-30 12:00, Fujii Masao wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2020/10/20 11:31, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think we need to add some statistics to pg_stat_wal view. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Although there are some parameter related WAL, >>>>>>>>>> there are few statistics for tuning them. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think it's better to provide the following statistics. >>>>>>>>>> Please let me know your comments. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ``` >>>>>>>>>> postgres=# SELECT * from pg_stat_wal; >>>>>>>>>> -[ RECORD 1 ]-------+------------------------------ >>>>>>>>>> wal_records | 2000224 >>>>>>>>>> wal_fpi | 47 >>>>>>>>>> wal_bytes | 248216337 >>>>>>>>>> wal_buffers_full | 20954 >>>>>>>>>> wal_init_file | 8 >>>>>>>>>> wal_write_backend | 20960 >>>>>>>>>> wal_write_walwriter | 46 >>>>>>>>>> wal_write_time | 51 >>>>>>>>>> wal_sync_backend | 7 >>>>>>>>>> wal_sync_walwriter | 8 >>>>>>>>>> wal_sync_time | 0 >>>>>>>>>> stats_reset | 2020-10-20 11:04:51.307771+09 >>>>>>>>>> ``` >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 1. Basic statistics of WAL activity >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - wal_records: Total number of WAL records generated >>>>>>>>>> - wal_fpi: Total number of WAL full page images generated >>>>>>>>>> - wal_bytes: Total amount of WAL bytes generated >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To understand DB's performance, first, we will check the performance >>>>>>>>>> trends for the entire database instance. >>>>>>>>>> For example, if the number of wal_fpi becomes higher, users may tune >>>>>>>>>> "wal_compression", "checkpoint_timeout" and so on. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Although users can check the above statistics via EXPLAIN, auto_explain, >>>>>>>>>> autovacuum and pg_stat_statements now, >>>>>>>>>> if users want to see the performance trends for the entire database, >>>>>>>>>> they must recalculate the statistics. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think it is useful to add the sum of the basic statistics. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 2. WAL segment file creation >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - wal_init_file: Total number of WAL segment files created. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To create a new WAL file may have an impact on the performance of >>>>>>>>>> a write-heavy workload generating lots of WAL. If this number is reported high, >>>>>>>>>> to reduce the number of this initialization, we can tune WAL-related parameters >>>>>>>>>> so that more "recycled" WAL files can be held. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 3. Number of when WAL is flushed >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> - wal_write_backend : Total number of WAL data written to the disk by backends >>>>>>>>>> - wal_write_walwriter : Total number of WAL data written to the disk by walwriter >>>>>>>>>> - wal_sync_backend : Total number of WAL data synced to the disk by backends >>>>>>>>>> - wal_sync_walwriter : Total number of WAL data synced to the disk by walwrite >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I think it's useful for tuning "synchronous_commit" and "commit_delay" for query executions. >>>>>>>>>> If the number of WAL is flushed is high, users can know "synchronous_commit" is useful for the workload. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I just wonder how useful these counters are. Even without these counters, >>>>>>>>> we already know synchronous_commit=off is likely to cause the better >>>>>>>>> performance (but has the risk of data loss). So ISTM that these counters are >>>>>>>>> not so useful when tuning synchronous_commit. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, my understanding was wrong. >>>>>>>> I agreed that your comments. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I merged the statistics of *_backend and *_walwriter. >>>>>>>> I think the sum of them is useful to calculate the average per write/sync time. >>>>>>>> For example, per write time is equals wal_write_time / wal_write. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Understood. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for updating the patch! >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for your comments. >>>>>> >>>>>>> patching file src/include/catalog/pg_proc.dat >>>>>>> Hunk #1 FAILED at 5491. >>>>>>> 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file >>>>>>> src/include/catalog/pg_proc.dat.rej >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I got this failure when applying the patch. Could you update the patch? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, I updated the patch. >>>>>> >>>>>>> - Number of times WAL data was written to the disk because WAL >>>>>>> buffers got full >>>>>>> + Total number of times WAL data written to the disk because WAL >>>>>>> buffers got full >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Isn't "was" necessary between "data" and "written"? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, I fixed it. >>>>>> >>>>>>> + <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition"> >>>>>>> + <structfield>wal_bytes</structfield> <type>bigint</type> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Shouldn't the type of wal_bytes be numeric because the total number of >>>>>>> WAL bytes can exceed the range of bigint? I think that the type of >>>>>>> pg_stat_statements.wal_bytes is also numeric for the same reason. >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, I fixed it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Since I cast the type of wal_bytes from PgStat_Counter to uint64, >>>>>> I changed the type of PgStat_MsgWal and PgStat_WalStats too. >>>>>> >>>>>>> + <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition"> >>>>>>> + <structfield>wal_write_time</structfield> <type>bigint</type> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Shouldn't the type of wal_xxx_time be double precision, >>>>>>> like pg_stat_database.blk_write_time? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, I changed it. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Even when fsync is set to off or wal_sync_method is set to open_sync, >>>>>>> wal_sync is incremented. Isn't this behavior confusing? >>>>> >>>>> What do you think about this comment? >>>> >>>> Sorry, I'll change to increment wal_sync and wal_sync_time only >>>> if a specific fsync method is called. >>>> >>>>> I found that we discussed track-WAL-IO-timing feature at the past discussion >>>>> about the similar feature [1]. But the feature was droppped from the proposal >>>>> patch because there was the performance concern. So probably we need to >>>>> revisit the past discussion and benchmark the performance. Thought? >>>>> >>>>> If track-WAL-IO-timing feature may cause performance regression, >>>>> it might be an idea to extract wal_records, wal_fpi and wal_bytes parts >>>>> from the patch and commit it at first. >>>>> >>>>> [1] >>>>> https://postgr.es/m/CAJrrPGc6APFUGYNcPe4qcNxpL8gXKYv1KST+vwJcFtCSCEySnA@mail.gmail.com >>>> >>>> Thanks, I'll check the thread. >>>> I agree to add basic statistics at first and I attached the patch. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> + /* Send WAL statistics */ >>> + pgstat_send_wal(); >>> >>> This is not necessary because walwriter generates no WAL data? >> >> No, it's not necessary. >> Thanks. I fixed it. > > Thanks for updating the patch! I applied cosmetic changes to it. > For example, I added more comments. Patch attached. > Barring no objection, I will commit this patch. Pushed. Thanks! Regards, -- Fujii Masao Advanced Computing Technology Center Research and Development Headquarters NTT DATA CORPORATION -
Re: Add statistics to pg_stat_wal view for wal related parameter tuning
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> — 2020-12-21T21:16:50Z
Hi, On 2020-12-02 13:52:43 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > Pushed. Thanks! Why are wal_records/fpi long, instead of uint64? long wal_records; /* # of WAL records produced */ long wal_fpi; /* # of WAL full page images produced */ uint64 wal_bytes; /* size of WAL records produced */ long is only 4 byte e.g. on windows, and it is entirely possible to wrap a 4 byte record counter. It's also somewhat weird that wal_bytes is unsigned, but the others are signed? This is made doubly weird because on the SQL level you chose to make wal_records, wal_fpi bigint. And wal_bytes numeric? Greetings, Andres Freund
-
Re: Add statistics to pg_stat_wal view for wal related parameter tuning
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> — 2020-12-22T00:39:35Z
Hi, On 2020-12-21 13:16:50 -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2020-12-02 13:52:43 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: > > Pushed. Thanks! > > Why are wal_records/fpi long, instead of uint64? > long wal_records; /* # of WAL records produced */ > long wal_fpi; /* # of WAL full page images produced */ > uint64 wal_bytes; /* size of WAL records produced */ > > long is only 4 byte e.g. on windows, and it is entirely possible to wrap > a 4 byte record counter. It's also somewhat weird that wal_bytes is > unsigned, but the others are signed? > > This is made doubly weird because on the SQL level you chose to make > wal_records, wal_fpi bigint. And wal_bytes numeric? Some more things: - There's both PgStat_MsgWal WalStats; and static PgStat_WalStats walStats; that seems *WAY* too confusing. And the former imo shouldn't be global. - AdvanceXLInsertBuffer() does WalStats.m_wal_buffers_full, but as far as I can tell there's nothing actually sending that? - Andres
-
Re: Add statistics to pg_stat_wal view for wal related parameter tuning
Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> — 2020-12-22T02:16:43Z
Thanks for your comments. On 2020-12-22 09:39, Andres Freund wrote: > Hi, > > On 2020-12-21 13:16:50 -0800, Andres Freund wrote: >> On 2020-12-02 13:52:43 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: >> > Pushed. Thanks! >> >> Why are wal_records/fpi long, instead of uint64? >> long wal_records; /* # of WAL records produced */ >> long wal_fpi; /* # of WAL full page images produced */ >> uint64 wal_bytes; /* size of WAL records produced */ >> >> long is only 4 byte e.g. on windows, and it is entirely possible to >> wrap >> a 4 byte record counter. It's also somewhat weird that wal_bytes is >> unsigned, but the others are signed? >> >> This is made doubly weird because on the SQL level you chose to make >> wal_records, wal_fpi bigint. And wal_bytes numeric? I'm sorry I don't know the reason. The following thread is related to the patch and the type of wal_bytes is changed from long to uint64 because XLogRecPtr is uint64. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20200402144438.GF64485%40nol#1f0127c98df430104c63426fdc285c20 I assumed that the reason why the type of wal_records/fpi is long is BufferUsage have the members (i.e, shared_blks_hit) of the same types. So, I think it's better if to change the type of wal_records/fpi from long to uint64, to change the types of BufferUsage's members too. > Some more things: > - There's both PgStat_MsgWal WalStats; and static PgStat_WalStats > walStats; > that seems *WAY* too confusing. And the former imo shouldn't be > global. Sorry for the confusing name. I referenced the following variable name. static PgStat_MsgSLRU SLRUStats[SLRU_NUM_ELEMENTS]; static PgStat_SLRUStats slruStats[SLRU_NUM_ELEMENTS]; How about to change from "PgStat_MsgWal WalStats" to "PgStat_MsgWal MsgWalStats"? Is it better to change the following name too? "PgStat_MsgBgWriter BgWriterStats;" "static PgStat_MsgSLRU SLRUStats[SLRU_NUM_ELEMENTS];" Since PgStat_MsgWal is called in xlog.c and pgstat.c, I thought it's should be global. > - AdvanceXLInsertBuffer() does WalStats.m_wal_buffers_full, but as far > as I can tell there's nothing actually sending that? IIUC, when pgstat_send_wal() is called by backends and so on, it is sent to the statistic collector and it is exposed via pg_stat_wal view. Regards, -- Masahiro Ikeda NTT DATA CORPORATION
-
Re: Add statistics to pg_stat_wal view for wal related parameter tuning
Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> — 2021-01-20T03:48:27Z
On 2020-12-22 11:16, Masahiro Ikeda wrote: > Thanks for your comments. > > On 2020-12-22 09:39, Andres Freund wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 2020-12-21 13:16:50 -0800, Andres Freund wrote: >>> On 2020-12-02 13:52:43 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote: >>> > Pushed. Thanks! >>> >>> Why are wal_records/fpi long, instead of uint64? >>> long wal_records; /* # of WAL records produced */ >>> long wal_fpi; /* # of WAL full page images produced */ >>> uint64 wal_bytes; /* size of WAL records produced */ >>> >>> long is only 4 byte e.g. on windows, and it is entirely possible to >>> wrap >>> a 4 byte record counter. It's also somewhat weird that wal_bytes is >>> unsigned, but the others are signed? >>> >>> This is made doubly weird because on the SQL level you chose to make >>> wal_records, wal_fpi bigint. And wal_bytes numeric? > > I'm sorry I don't know the reason. > > The following thread is related to the patch and the type of wal_bytes > is changed from long to uint64 because XLogRecPtr is uint64. > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20200402144438.GF64485%40nol#1f0127c98df430104c63426fdc285c20 > > I assumed that the reason why the type of wal_records/fpi is long > is BufferUsage have the members (i.e, shared_blks_hit) of the same > types. > > So, I think it's better if to change the type of wal_records/fpi from > long to uint64, > to change the types of BufferUsage's members too. I've done a little more research so I'll share the results. IUCC, theoretically this leads to caliculate the statistics less, but actually, it's not happened. The above "wal_records", "wal_fpi" are accumulation values and when WalUsageAccumDiff() is called, we can know how many wals are generated for specific executions, for example, planning/executing a query, processing a utility command, and vacuuming one relation. The following variable has accumulated "wal_records" and "wal_fpi" per process. ``` typedef struct WalUsage { long wal_records; /* # of WAL records produced */ long wal_fpi; /* # of WAL full page images produced */ uint64 wal_bytes; /* size of WAL records produced */ } WalUsage; WalUsage pgWalUsage; ``` Although this may be overflow, it doesn't affect to caliculate the difference of wal usage between some execution points. If to generate over 2 billion wal records per executions, 4 bytes is not enough and collected statistics will be lost, but I think it's not happened. In addition, "wal_records" and "wal_fpi" values sent by processes are accumulated in the statistic collector and their types are PgStat_Counter(int64). ``` typedef struct PgStat_WalStats { PgStat_Counter wal_records; PgStat_Counter wal_fpi; uint64 wal_bytes; PgStat_Counter wal_buffers_full; TimestampTz stat_reset_timestamp; } PgStat_WalStats; ``` >> Some more things: >> - There's both PgStat_MsgWal WalStats; and static PgStat_WalStats >> walStats; >> that seems *WAY* too confusing. And the former imo shouldn't be >> global. > > Sorry for the confusing name. > I referenced the following variable name. > > static PgStat_MsgSLRU SLRUStats[SLRU_NUM_ELEMENTS]; > static PgStat_SLRUStats slruStats[SLRU_NUM_ELEMENTS]; > > How about to change from "PgStat_MsgWal WalStats" > to "PgStat_MsgWal MsgWalStats"? > > Is it better to change the following name too? > "PgStat_MsgBgWriter BgWriterStats;" > "static PgStat_MsgSLRU SLRUStats[SLRU_NUM_ELEMENTS];" > > Since PgStat_MsgWal is called in xlog.c and pgstat.c, > I thought it's should be global. I made an attached patch to rename the above variable names. What do you think? Regards, -- Masahiro Ikeda NTT DATA CORPORATION