From cjs@cynic.net Thu Jun 20 22:18:27 2002
Return-path: <cjs@cynic.net>
Received: from academic.cynic.net (academic.cynic.net [63.144.177.3])
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g5L2IPo22195
	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Thu, 20 Jun 2002 22:18:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from angelic-academic.cvpn.cynic.net (angelic-academic.cvpn.cynic.net [198.73.220.224])
	by academic.cynic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 88216F821; Fri, 21 Jun 2002 02:18:17 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 11:18:14 +0900 (JST)
From: Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
cc: Michael Loftis <mloftis@wgops.com>, mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com>,
   PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE
In-Reply-To: <200206210158.g5L1wFk20118@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.43.0206211106390.437-100000@angelic.cynic.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: OR

On Thu, 20 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> > MS SQL Server has an interesting way of dealing with this. They have a
> > "torn" bit in each 512-byte chunk of a page, and this bit is set the
> > same for each chunk. When they are about to write out a page, they first
> > flip all of the torn bits and then do the write. If the write does not
> > complete due to a system crash or whatever, this can be detected later
> > because the torn bits won't match across the entire page.
>
> I was wondering, how does knowing the block is corrupt help MS SQL?

I'm trying to recall, but I can't off hand. I'll have to look it
up in my Inside SQL Server book, which is at home right now,
unfortunately. I'll bring the book into work and let you know the
details later.

> Right now, we write changed pages to WAL, then later write them to disk.

Ah. You write the entire page? MS writes only the changed tuple.
And DB2, in fact, goes one better and writes only the part of the
tuple up to the change, IIRC. Thus, if you put smaller and/or more
frequently changed columns first, you'll have smaller logs.

> I have always been looking for a way to prevent these WAL writes.  The
> 512-byte bit seems interesting, but how does it help?

Well, this would at least let you reduce the write to the 512-byte
chunk that changed, rather than writing the entire 8K page.

> And how does the bit help them with partial block writes?  Is the bit at
> the end of the block?  Is that reliable?

The bit is somewhere within every 512 byte "disk page" within the
8192 byte "filesystem/database page." So an 8KB page is divided up
like this:

    | <----------------------- 8 Kb ----------------------> |

    | 512b | 512b | 512b | 512b | 512b | 512b | 512b | 512b |

Thus, the tear bits start out like this:

    |  0   |  0   |  0   |  0   |  0   |  0   |  0   |  0   |

After a successful write of the entire page, you have this:

    |  1   |  1   |  1   |  1   |  1   |  1   |  1   |  1   |

If the write is unsuccessful, you end up with something like this:

    |  1   |  1   |  1   |  1   |  1   |  0   |  0   |  0   |

And now you know which parts of your page got written, and which
parts didn't.

cjs
-- 
Curt Sampson  <cjs@cynic.net>   +81 90 7737 2974   http://www.netbsd.org
    Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light.  --XTC


From cjs@cynic.net Sat Jun 22 04:41:54 2002
Return-path: <cjs@cynic.net>
Received: from academic.cynic.net ([63.144.177.3])
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g5M8fpF04711
	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 04:41:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from angelic-academic.cvpn.cynic.net (angelic-academic.cvpn.cynic.net [198.73.220.224])
	by academic.cynic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 415C8F820; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 08:41:33 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 2002 17:41:30 +0900 (JST)
From: Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>, Michael Loftis <mloftis@wgops.com>,
   mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com>,
   PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE 
In-Reply-To: <19332.1024668861@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.43.0206221731130.1091-100000@angelic.cynic.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: OR

On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

> Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net> writes:
> > And now you know which parts of your page got written, and which
> > parts didn't.
>
> Yes ... and what do you *do* about it?

Ok. Here's the extract from _Inside Microsoft SQL Server 7.0_, page 207:

    torn page detection   When TRUE, this option causes a bit to be
	flipped for each 512-byte sector in a database page (8 KB)
	whenever the page is written to disk.  This option allows
	SQL Server to detect incomplete I/O operations caused by
	power failures or other system outages. If a bit is in the
	wrong state when the page is later read by SQL Server, this
	means the page was written incorrectly; a torn page has
	been detected. Although SQL Server database pages are 8
	KB, disks perform I/O operations using 512-byte sectors.
	Therefore, 16 sectors are written per database page.  A
	torn page can occur if the system crashes (for example,
	because of power failure) between the time the operating
	system writes the first 512-byte sector to disk and the
	completion of the 8-KB I/O operation.  If the first sector
	of a database page is successfully written before the crash,
	it will appear that the database page on disk was updated,
	although it might not have succeeded. Using battery-backed
	disk caches can ensure that data is [sic] successfully
	written to disk or not written at all. In this case, don't
	set torn page detection to TRUE, as it isn't needed. If a
	torn page is detected, the database will need to be restored
	from backup because it will be physically inconsistent.

As I understand it, this is not a problem for postgres becuase the
entire page is written to the log. So postgres is safe, but quite
inefficient. (It would be much more efficient to write just the
changed tuple, or even just the changed values within the tuple,
to the log.)

Adding these torn bits would allow posgres at least to write to
the log just the 512-byte sectors that have changed, rather than
the entire 8 KB page.

cjs
-- 
Curt Sampson  <cjs@cynic.net>   +81 90 7737 2974   http://www.netbsd.org
    Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light.  --XTC


From pgsql-hackers-owner+M24060@postgresql.org Sat Jun 22 18:31:21 2002
Return-path: <pgsql-hackers-owner+M24060@postgresql.org>
Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g5MMVKF20014
	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 18:31:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 0ADFE476090; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 18:31:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP
	id 6B372475A96; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 18:28:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47AD2475935
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 18:28:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from hades.usol.com (hades.usol.com [208.232.58.41])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D5DA476166
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Sat, 22 Jun 2002 18:23:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from 01-081.024.popsite.net (01-081.024.popsite.net [216.126.160.81])
	by hades.usol.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g5MMMOj11344;
	Sat, 22 Jun 2002 18:22:25 -0400
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE
From: "J. R. Nield" <jrnield@usol.com>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
cc: Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net>, Michael Loftis <mloftis@wgops.com>,
   mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com>,
   PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
   Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <200206210158.g5L1wFk20118@candle.pha.pa.us>
References: <200206210158.g5L1wFk20118@candle.pha.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <1024784514.1793.242.camel@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.3 (1.0.3-6) 
Date: 22 Jun 2002 18:22:58 -0400
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
Status: ORr

On Thu, 2002-06-20 at 21:58, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I was wondering, how does knowing the block is corrupt help MS SQL? 
> Right now, we write changed pages to WAL, then later write them to disk.
> I have always been looking for a way to prevent these WAL writes.  The
> 512-byte bit seems interesting, but how does it help?
> 
> And how does the bit help them with partial block writes?  Is the bit at
> the end of the block?  Is that reliable?
> 

My understanding of this is as follows:

1) On most commercial systems, if you get a corrupted block (from
partial write or whatever) you need to restore the file(s) from the most
recent backup, and replay the log from the log archive (usually only the
damaged files will be written to during replay). 

2) If you can't deal with the downtime to recover the file, then EMC,
Sun, or IBM will sell you an expensive disk array with an NVRAM cache
that will do atomic writes. Some plain-vanilla SCSI disks are also
capable of atomic writes, though usually they don't use NVRAM to do it. 

The database must then make sure that each page-write gets translated
into exactly one SCSI-level write. This is one reason why ORACLE and
Sybase recommend that you use raw disk partitions for high availability.
Some operating systems support this through the filesystem, but it is OS
dependent. I think Solaris 7 & 8 has support for this, but I'm not sure.

PostgreSQL has trouble because it can neither archive logs for replay,
nor use raw disk partitions.


One other point:

Page pre-image logging is fundamentally the same as what Jim Grey's
book[1] would call "careful writes". I don't believe they should be in
the XLOG, because we never need to keep the pre-images after we're sure
the buffer has made it to the disk. Instead, we should have the buffer
IO routines implement ping-pong writes of some kind if we want
protection from partial writes.


Does any of this make sense?



;jrnield


[1] Grey, J. and Reuter, A. (1993). "Transaction Processing: Concepts
	and Techniques". Morgan Kaufmann.

-- 
J. R. Nield
jrnield@usol.com




---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

From pgsql-hackers-owner+M24068@postgresql.org Sun Jun 23 08:40:27 2002
Return-path: <pgsql-hackers-owner+M24068@postgresql.org>
Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g5NCeQF01601
	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 08:40:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 8AC4B475CBC; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 08:40:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP
	id 4683647599D; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 08:37:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D57847592A
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 08:37:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from hades.usol.com (hades.usol.com [208.232.58.41])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75326475876
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 08:37:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from 08-032.024.popsite.net (08-032.024.popsite.net [66.19.4.32])
	by hades.usol.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g5NCbNj02111;
	Sun, 23 Jun 2002 08:37:23 -0400
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE
From: "J. R. Nield" <jrnield@usol.com>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
cc: Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net>, Michael Loftis <mloftis@wgops.com>,
   mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com>,
   PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
   Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <200206222317.g5MNHBn23427@candle.pha.pa.us>
References: <200206222317.g5MNHBn23427@candle.pha.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.3 (1.0.3-6) 
Date: 23 Jun 2002 08:37:53 -0400
Message-ID: <1024835880.1793.264.camel@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
Status: OR

On Sat, 2002-06-22 at 19:17, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> J. R. Nield wrote:
> > One other point:
> > 
> > Page pre-image logging is fundamentally the same as what Jim Grey's
> > book[1] would call "careful writes". I don't believe they should be in
> > the XLOG, because we never need to keep the pre-images after we're sure
> > the buffer has made it to the disk. Instead, we should have the buffer
> > IO routines implement ping-pong writes of some kind if we want
> > protection from partial writes.
> 
> Ping-pong writes to where?  We have to fsync, and rather than fsync that
> area and WAL, we just do WAL.  Not sure about a win there.
> 

The key question is: do we have some method to ensure that the OS
doesn't do the writes in parallel?

If the OS will ensure that one of the two block writes of a ping-pong
completes before the other starts, then we don't need to fsync() at 
all. 

The only thing we are protecting against is the possibility of both
writes being partial. If neither is done, that's fine because WAL will
protect us. If the first write is partial, we will detect that and use
the old data from the other, then recover from WAL. If the first is
complete but the second is partial, then we detect that and use the
newer block from the first write. If the second is complete but the
first is partial, we detect that and use the newer block from the second
write.

So does anyone know a way to prevent parallel writes in one of the
common unix standards? Do they say anything about this?

It would seem to me that if the same process does both ping-pong writes,
then there should be a cheap way to enforce a serial order. I could be
wrong though.

As to where the first block of the ping-pong should go, maybe we could
reserve a file with nBlocks space for them, and write the information
about which block was being written to the XLOG for use in recovery.
There are many other ways to do it.

;jrnield

-- 
J. R. Nield
jrnield@usol.com




---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

From jrnield@usol.com Sun Jun 23 08:37:30 2002
Return-path: <jrnield@usol.com>
Received: from hades.usol.com (IDENT:root@hades.usol.com [208.232.58.41])
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g5NCbRF28741
	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 08:37:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from 08-032.024.popsite.net (08-032.024.popsite.net [66.19.4.32])
	by hades.usol.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g5NCbNj02111;
	Sun, 23 Jun 2002 08:37:23 -0400
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE
From: "J. R. Nield" <jrnield@usol.com>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
cc: Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net>, Michael Loftis <mloftis@wgops.com>,
   mlw
  <markw@mohawksoft.com>,
   PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
   Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <200206222317.g5MNHBn23427@candle.pha.pa.us>
References: <200206222317.g5MNHBn23427@candle.pha.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.3 (1.0.3-6) 
Date: 23 Jun 2002 08:37:53 -0400
Message-ID: <1024835880.1793.264.camel@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Status: OR

On Sat, 2002-06-22 at 19:17, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> J. R. Nield wrote:
> > One other point:
> > 
> > Page pre-image logging is fundamentally the same as what Jim Grey's
> > book[1] would call "careful writes". I don't believe they should be in
> > the XLOG, because we never need to keep the pre-images after we're sure
> > the buffer has made it to the disk. Instead, we should have the buffer
> > IO routines implement ping-pong writes of some kind if we want
> > protection from partial writes.
> 
> Ping-pong writes to where?  We have to fsync, and rather than fsync that
> area and WAL, we just do WAL.  Not sure about a win there.
> 

The key question is: do we have some method to ensure that the OS
doesn't do the writes in parallel?

If the OS will ensure that one of the two block writes of a ping-pong
completes before the other starts, then we don't need to fsync() at 
all. 

The only thing we are protecting against is the possibility of both
writes being partial. If neither is done, that's fine because WAL will
protect us. If the first write is partial, we will detect that and use
the old data from the other, then recover from WAL. If the first is
complete but the second is partial, then we detect that and use the
newer block from the first write. If the second is complete but the
first is partial, we detect that and use the newer block from the second
write.

So does anyone know a way to prevent parallel writes in one of the
common unix standards? Do they say anything about this?

It would seem to me that if the same process does both ping-pong writes,
then there should be a cheap way to enforce a serial order. I could be
wrong though.

As to where the first block of the ping-pong should go, maybe we could
reserve a file with nBlocks space for them, and write the information
about which block was being written to the XLOG for use in recovery.
There are many other ways to do it.

;jrnield

-- 
J. R. Nield
jrnield@usol.com




From cjs@cynic.net Sun Jun 23 09:33:29 2002
Return-path: <cjs@cynic.net>
Received: from academic.cynic.net (academic.cynic.net [63.144.177.3])
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g5NDXSF11543
	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 09:33:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from angelic-academic.cvpn.cynic.net (angelic-academic.cvpn.cynic.net [198.73.220.224])
	by academic.cynic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id A83ABF820; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 13:33:15 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 22:33:07 +0900 (JST)
From: Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net>
To: "J. R. Nield" <jrnield@usol.com>
cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>, Michael Loftis <mloftis@wgops.com>,
   mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com>,
   PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
   Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE
In-Reply-To: <1024835880.1793.264.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.43.0206232223300.2100-100000@angelic.cynic.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: OR

On 23 Jun 2002, J. R. Nield wrote:

> On Sat, 2002-06-22 at 19:17, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > J. R. Nield wrote:
> > > One other point:
> > >
> > > Page pre-image logging is fundamentally the same as what Jim Grey's
> > > book[1] would call "careful writes". I don't believe they should be in
> > > the XLOG, because we never need to keep the pre-images after we're sure
> > > the buffer has made it to the disk. Instead, we should have the buffer
> > > IO routines implement ping-pong writes of some kind if we want
> > > protection from partial writes.
> >
> > Ping-pong writes to where?  We have to fsync, and rather than fsync that
> > area and WAL, we just do WAL.  Not sure about a win there.

Presumably the win is that, "we never need to keep the pre-images
after we're sure the buffer has made it to the disk." So the
pre-image log can be completely ditched when we shut down the
server, so a full system sync, or whatever. This keeps the log file
size down, which means faster recovery, less to back up (when we
start getting transaction logs that can be backed up), etc.

This should also allow us to disable completely the ping-pong writes
if we have a disk subsystem that we trust. (E.g., a disk array with
battery backed memory.) That would, in theory, produce a nice little
performance increase when lots of inserts and/or updates are being
committed, as we have much, much less to write to the log file.

Are there stats that track, e.g., the bandwidth of writes to the
log file? I'd be interested in knowing just what kind of savings
one might see by doing this.

> The key question is: do we have some method to ensure that the OS
> doesn't do the writes in parallel?...
> It would seem to me that if the same process does both ping-pong writes,
> then there should be a cheap way to enforce a serial order. I could be
> wrong though.

Well, whether or not there's a cheap way depends on whether you consider
fsync to be cheap. :-)

cjs
-- 
Curt Sampson  <cjs@cynic.net>   +81 90 7737 2974   http://www.netbsd.org
    Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light.  --XTC


From pgsql-hackers-owner+M24073@postgresql.org Sun Jun 23 11:19:59 2002
Return-path: <pgsql-hackers-owner+M24073@postgresql.org>
Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g5NFJxF19785
	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 11:19:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 0BD5B475E79; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 11:19:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP
	id 5C0CB475D6A; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 11:19:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2353475C4B
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 11:19:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 746F8475AEA
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 11:19:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g5NFJF108464;
	Sun, 23 Jun 2002 11:19:15 -0400 (EDT)
To: Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net>
cc: "J. R. Nield" <jrnield@usol.com>, Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>,
   Michael Loftis <mloftis@wgops.com>, mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com>,
   PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE 
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.4.43.0206232223300.2100-100000@angelic.cynic.net> 
References: <Pine.NEB.4.43.0206232223300.2100-100000@angelic.cynic.net>
Comments: In-reply-to Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net>
	message dated "Sun, 23 Jun 2002 22:33:07 +0900"
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 11:19:15 -0400
Message-ID: <8461.1024845555@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
Status: OR

Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net> writes:
> This should also allow us to disable completely the ping-pong writes
> if we have a disk subsystem that we trust.

If we have a disk subsystem we trust, we just disable fsync on the
WAL and the performance issue largely goes away.

I concur with Bruce: the reason we keep page images in WAL is to
minimize the number of places we have to fsync, and thus the amount of
head movement required for a commit.  Putting the page images elsewhere
cannot be a win AFAICS.

> Well, whether or not there's a cheap way depends on whether you consider
> fsync to be cheap. :-)

It's never cheap :-(

			regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html

From cjs@cynic.net Sun Jun 23 12:10:44 2002
Return-path: <cjs@cynic.net>
Received: from academic.cynic.net (academic.cynic.net [63.144.177.3])
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g5NGAgF22907
	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 12:10:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from angelic-academic.cvpn.cynic.net (angelic-academic.cvpn.cynic.net [198.73.220.224])
	by academic.cynic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 57BFDF820; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 16:10:35 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 01:10:26 +0900 (JST)
From: Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
cc: "J. R. Nield" <jrnield@usol.com>, Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>,
   Michael Loftis <mloftis@wgops.com>, mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com>,
   PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE 
In-Reply-To: <8461.1024845555@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.43.0206240057070.2100-100000@angelic.cynic.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: OR

On Sun, 23 Jun 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

> Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net> writes:
> > This should also allow us to disable completely the ping-pong writes
> > if we have a disk subsystem that we trust.
>
> If we have a disk subsystem we trust, we just disable fsync on the
> WAL and the performance issue largely goes away.

No, you can't do this. If you don't fsync(), there's no guarantee
that the write ever got out of the computer's buffer cache and to
the disk subsystem in the first place.

> I concur with Bruce: the reason we keep page images in WAL is to
> minimize the number of places we have to fsync, and thus the amount of
> head movement required for a commit.

An fsync() does not necessarially cause head movement, or any real
disk writes at all. If you're writing to many external disk arrays,
for example, the fsync() ensures that the data are in the disk array's
non-volatile or UPS-backed RAM, no more. The array might hold the data
for quite some time before it actually writes it to disk.

But you're right that it's faster, if you're going to write out changed
pages and have have the ping-pong file and the transaction log on the
same disk, just to write out the entire page to the transaction log.

So what we would really need to implement, if we wanted to be more
efficient with trusted disk subsystems, would be the option of writing
to the log only the changed row or changed part of the row, or writing
the entire changed page. I don't know how hard this would be....

> > Well, whether or not there's a cheap way depends on whether you consider
> > fsync to be cheap. :-)
>
> It's never cheap :-(

Actually, with a good external RAID system with non-volatile RAM,
it's a good two to four orders of magnitude cheaper than writing to a
directly connected disk that doesn't claim the write is complete until
it's physically on disk. I'd say that it qualifies as at least "not
expensive." Not that you want to do it more often than you have to
anyway....

cjs
-- 
Curt Sampson  <cjs@cynic.net>   +81 90 7737 2974   http://www.netbsd.org
    Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light.  --XTC


From jrnield@usol.com Sun Jun 23 13:56:59 2002
Return-path: <jrnield@usol.com>
Received: from hades.usol.com (IDENT:root@hades.usol.com [208.232.58.41])
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g5NHusF00335
	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 13:56:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from 04-077.024.popsite.net (04-077.024.popsite.net [216.126.163.77])
	by hades.usol.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g5NHunj18549;
	Sun, 23 Jun 2002 13:56:49 -0400
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE
From: "J. R. Nield" <jrnield@usol.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
cc: Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net>, Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>,
   Michael Loftis <mloftis@wgops.com>, mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com>,
   PostgreSQL Hacker
  <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: <8461.1024845555@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <Pine.NEB.4.43.0206232223300.2100-100000@angelic.cynic.net> 
	<8461.1024845555@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.3 (1.0.3-6) 
Date: 23 Jun 2002 13:57:19 -0400
Message-ID: <1024855044.1793.414.camel@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Status: ORr

On Sun, 2002-06-23 at 11:19, Tom Lane wrote: 
> Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net> writes:
> > This should also allow us to disable completely the ping-pong writes
> > if we have a disk subsystem that we trust.
> 
> If we have a disk subsystem we trust, we just disable fsync on the
> WAL and the performance issue largely goes away.

It wouldn't work because the OS buffering interferes, and we need those
WAL records on disk up to the greatest LSN of the Buffer we will be writing.


We already buffer WAL ourselves. We also already buffer regular pages.
Whenever we write a Buffer out of the buffer cache, it is because we
really want that page on disk and wanted to start an IO. If thats not
the case, then we should have more block buffers! 

So since we have all this buffering designed especially to meet our
needs, and since the OS buffering is in the way, can someone explain to
me why postgresql would ever open a file without the O_DSYNC flag if the
platform supports it? 



> 
> I concur with Bruce: the reason we keep page images in WAL is to
> minimize the number of places we have to fsync, and thus the amount of
> head movement required for a commit.  Putting the page images elsewhere
> cannot be a win AFAICS.


Why not put all the page images in a single pre-allocated file and treat
it as a ring? How could this be any worse than flushing them in the WAL
log? 

Maybe fsync would be slower with two files, but I don't see how
fdatasync would be, and most platforms support that. 

What would improve performance would be to have a dbflush process that
would work in the background flushing buffers in groups and trying to
stay ahead of ReadBuffer requests. That would let you do the temporary
side of the ping-pong as a huge O_DSYNC writev(2) request (or
fdatasync() once) and then write out the other buffers. It would also
tend to prevent the other backends from blocking on write requests. 

A dbflush could also support aio_read/aio_write on platforms like
Solaris and WindowsNT that support it. 

Am I correct that right now, buffers only get written when they get
removed from the free list for reuse? So a released dirty buffer will
sit in the buffer free list until it becomes the Least Recently Used
buffer, and will then cause a backend to block for IO in a call to
BufferAlloc? 

This would explain why we like using the OS buffer cache, and why our
performance is troublesome when we have to do synchronous IO writes, and
why fsync() takes so long to complete. All of the backends block for
each call to BufferAlloc() after a large table update by a single
backend, and then the OS buffers are always full of our "written" data. 

Am I reading the bufmgr code correctly? I already found an imaginary
race condition there once :-) 

;jnield 


> 
> > Well, whether or not there's a cheap way depends on whether you consider
> > fsync to be cheap. :-)
> 
> It's never cheap :-(
> 
-- 
J. R. Nield
jrnield@usol.com


From cjs@cynic.net Sun Jun 23 14:15:15 2002
Return-path: <cjs@cynic.net>
Received: from academic.cynic.net (academic.cynic.net [63.144.177.3])
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g5NIFEF01698
	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 14:15:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from angelic-academic.cvpn.cynic.net (angelic-academic.cvpn.cynic.net [198.73.220.224])
	by academic.cynic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 796E6F820; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 18:15:08 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 03:15:01 +0900 (JST)
From: Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net>
To: "J. R. Nield" <jrnield@usol.com>
cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>,
   Michael Loftis <mloftis@wgops.com>, mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com>,
   PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE
In-Reply-To: <1024855044.1793.414.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.43.0206240307550.511-100000@angelic.cynic.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: ORr

On 23 Jun 2002, J. R. Nield wrote:

> So since we have all this buffering designed especially to meet our
> needs, and since the OS buffering is in the way, can someone explain to
> me why postgresql would ever open a file without the O_DSYNC flag if the
> platform supports it?

It's more code, if there are platforms out there that don't support
O_DYSNC. (We still have to keep the old fsync code.) On the other hand,
O_DSYNC could save us a disk arm movement over fsync() because it
appears to me that fsync is also going to force a metadata update, which
means that the inode blocks have to be written as well.

> Maybe fsync would be slower with two files, but I don't see how
> fdatasync would be, and most platforms support that.

Because, if both files are on the same disk, you still have to move
the disk arm from the cylinder at the current log file write point
to the cylinder at the current ping-pong file write point. And then back
again to the log file write point cylinder.

In the end, having a ping-pong file as well seems to me unnecessary
complexity, especially when anyone interested in really good
performance is going to buy a disk subsystem that guarantees no
torn pages and thus will want to turn off the ping-pong file writes
entirely, anyway.

cjs
-- 
Curt Sampson  <cjs@cynic.net>   +81 90 7737 2974   http://www.netbsd.org
    Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light.  --XTC


From jrnield@usol.com Sun Jun 23 14:14:51 2002
Return-path: <jrnield@usol.com>
Received: from hades.usol.com (IDENT:root@hades.usol.com [208.232.58.41])
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g5NIEnF01649
	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 14:14:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from 04-077.024.popsite.net (04-077.024.popsite.net [216.126.163.77])
	by hades.usol.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g5NIEkj19287;
	Sun, 23 Jun 2002 14:14:46 -0400
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE
From: "J. R. Nield" <jrnield@usol.com>
To: Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net>
cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>,
   Michael Loftis <mloftis@wgops.com>, mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com>,
   PostgreSQL Hacker
  <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.4.43.0206240057070.2100-100000@angelic.cynic.net>
References: <Pine.NEB.4.43.0206240057070.2100-100000@angelic.cynic.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.3 (1.0.3-6) 
Date: 23 Jun 2002 14:15:17 -0400
Message-ID: <1024856120.3054.418.camel@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Status: OR

On Sun, 2002-06-23 at 12:10, Curt Sampson wrote:
> 
> So what we would really need to implement, if we wanted to be more
> efficient with trusted disk subsystems, would be the option of writing
> to the log only the changed row or changed part of the row, or writing
> the entire changed page. I don't know how hard this would be....
> 
We already log that stuff. The page images are in addition to the
"Logical Changes", so we could just stop logging the page images.

-- 
J. R. Nield
jrnield@usol.com




From pgsql-hackers-owner+M24100@postgresql.org Mon Jun 24 13:13:41 2002
Return-path: <pgsql-hackers-owner+M24100@postgresql.org>
Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g5OHDeF08564
	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 13:13:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 05602475CBE; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 13:11:10 -0400 (EDT)
Mailbox-Line: From pgman@candle.pha.pa.us  Mon Jun 24 13:11:10 2002
Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP
	id 929A247633B; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 09:26:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 962C147631A
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 08:31:43 -0400 (EDT)
Mailbox-Line: From pgman@candle.pha.pa.us  Mon Jun 24 08:31:43 2002
Received: from candle.pha.pa.us (216-55-132-35.dsl.san-diego.abac.net [216.55.132.35])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C112D475C3C
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 15:35:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from pgman@localhost)
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) id g5NJYtL07449;
	Sun, 23 Jun 2002 15:34:55 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-ID: <200206231934.g5NJYtL07449@candle.pha.pa.us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE
In-Reply-To: <1024855044.1793.414.camel@localhost.localdomain>
To: "J. R. Nield" <jrnield@usol.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 15:34:55 -0400 (EDT)
cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net>,
   Michael Loftis <mloftis@wgops.com>, mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com>,
   PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL97 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.4 required=5.0
	tests=IN_REP_TO
	version=2.30
Status: OR

J. R. Nield wrote:
> So since we have all this buffering designed especially to meet our
> needs, and since the OS buffering is in the way, can someone explain to
> me why postgresql would ever open a file without the O_DSYNC flag if the
> platform supports it? 

We sync only WAL, not the other pages, except for the sync() call we do
during checkpoint when we discard old WAL files.

> > I concur with Bruce: the reason we keep page images in WAL is to
> > minimize the number of places we have to fsync, and thus the amount of
> > head movement required for a commit.  Putting the page images elsewhere
> > cannot be a win AFAICS.
> 
> 
> Why not put all the page images in a single pre-allocated file and treat
> it as a ring? How could this be any worse than flushing them in the WAL
> log? 
> 
> Maybe fsync would be slower with two files, but I don't see how
> fdatasync would be, and most platforms support that. 

We have fdatasync option for WAL in postgresql.conf.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster



From pgsql-hackers-owner+M24091@postgresql.org Mon Jun 24 12:54:22 2002
Return-path: <pgsql-hackers-owner+M24091@postgresql.org>
Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g5OGsMF07208
	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 12:54:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 7DB7947679D; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 09:48:51 -0400 (EDT)
Mailbox-Line: From pgman@candle.pha.pa.us  Mon Jun 24 09:48:51 2002
Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP
	id 3FD37476491; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 08:55:34 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2769E4762E3
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 08:27:39 -0400 (EDT)
Mailbox-Line: From pgman@candle.pha.pa.us  Mon Jun 24 08:27:39 2002
Received: from candle.pha.pa.us (216-55-132-35.dsl.san-diego.abac.net [216.55.132.35])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED459475C61
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 15:37:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from pgman@localhost)
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) id g5NJasa07642;
	Sun, 23 Jun 2002 15:36:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-ID: <200206231936.g5NJasa07642@candle.pha.pa.us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.4.43.0206240307550.511-100000@angelic.cynic.net>
To: Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net>
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 15:36:54 -0400 (EDT)
cc: "J. R. Nield" <jrnield@usol.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
   Michael Loftis <mloftis@wgops.com>, mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com>,
   PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL97 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.4 required=5.0
	tests=IN_REP_TO
	version=2.30
Status: OR

Curt Sampson wrote:
> On 23 Jun 2002, J. R. Nield wrote:
> 
> > So since we have all this buffering designed especially to meet our
> > needs, and since the OS buffering is in the way, can someone explain to
> > me why postgresql would ever open a file without the O_DSYNC flag if the
> > platform supports it?
> 
> It's more code, if there are platforms out there that don't support
> O_DYSNC. (We still have to keep the old fsync code.) On the other hand,
> O_DSYNC could save us a disk arm movement over fsync() because it
> appears to me that fsync is also going to force a metadata update, which
> means that the inode blocks have to be written as well.

Again, see postgresql.conf:

#wal_sync_method = fsync        # the default varies across platforms:
#                               # fsync, fdatasync, open_sync, or open_datasync

> 
> > Maybe fsync would be slower with two files, but I don't see how
> > fdatasync would be, and most platforms support that.
> 
> Because, if both files are on the same disk, you still have to move
> the disk arm from the cylinder at the current log file write point
> to the cylinder at the current ping-pong file write point. And then back
> again to the log file write point cylinder.
> 
> In the end, having a ping-pong file as well seems to me unnecessary
> complexity, especially when anyone interested in really good
> performance is going to buy a disk subsystem that guarantees no
> torn pages and thus will want to turn off the ping-pong file writes
> entirely, anyway.

Yes, I don't see writing to two files vs. one to be any win, especially
when we need to fsync both of them.  What I would really like is to
avoid the double I/O of writing to WAL and to the data file;  improving
that would be a huge win.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster



From cjs@cynic.net Sun Jun 23 20:09:44 2002
Return-path: <cjs@cynic.net>
Received: from academic.cynic.net (academic.cynic.net [63.144.177.3])
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g5O09hF00630
	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 20:09:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from angelic-academic.cvpn.cynic.net (angelic-academic.cvpn.cynic.net [198.73.220.224])
	by academic.cynic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 6F45AF820; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 00:09:38 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 09:09:30 +0900 (JST)
From: Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
cc: "J. R. Nield" <jrnield@usol.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
   Michael Loftis <mloftis@wgops.com>, mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com>,
   PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE
In-Reply-To: <200206231936.g5NJasa07642@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.43.0206240907160.511-100000@angelic.cynic.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: OR

On Sun, 23 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> Yes, I don't see writing to two files vs. one to be any win, especially
> when we need to fsync both of them.  What I would really like is to
> avoid the double I/O of writing to WAL and to the data file;  improving
> that would be a huge win.

You mean, the double I/O of writing the block to the WAL and data file?
(We'd still have to write the changed columns or whatever to the WAL,
right?)

I'd just add an option to turn it off. If you need it, you need it;
there's no way around that except to buy hardware that is really going
to guarantee your writes (which then means you don't need it).

cjs
-- 
Curt Sampson  <cjs@cynic.net>   +81 90 7737 2974   http://www.netbsd.org
    Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light.  --XTC


From jrnield@usol.com Sun Jun 23 21:28:58 2002
Return-path: <jrnield@usol.com>
Received: from hades.usol.com (IDENT:root@hades.usol.com [208.232.58.41])
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g5O1SuF06381
	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 21:28:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from 01-072.024.popsite.net (01-072.024.popsite.net [216.126.160.72])
	by hades.usol.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g5O1Ssj09303;
	Sun, 23 Jun 2002 21:28:55 -0400
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE
From: "J. R. Nield" <jrnield@usol.com>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
cc: Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
   Michael Loftis
  <mloftis@wgops.com>, mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com>,
   PostgreSQL Hacker
  <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: <200206231936.g5NJasa07642@candle.pha.pa.us>
References: <200206231936.g5NJasa07642@candle.pha.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.3 (1.0.3-6) 
Date: 23 Jun 2002 21:29:23 -0400
Message-ID: <1024882167.1793.733.camel@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Status: ORr

On Sun, 2002-06-23 at 15:36, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Yes, I don't see writing to two files vs. one to be any win, especially
> when we need to fsync both of them.  What I would really like is to
> avoid the double I/O of writing to WAL and to the data file;  improving
> that would be a huge win.
> 

If is impossible to do what you want. You can not protect against
partial writes without writing pages twice and calling fdatasync between
them while going through a generic filesystem. The best disk array will
not protect you if the operating system does not align block writes to
the structure of the underlying device. Even with raw devices, you need
special support or knowledge of the operating system and/or the disk
device to ensure that each write request will be atomic to the
underlying hardware. 

All other systems rely on the fact that you can recover a damaged file
using the log archive. This means downtime in the rare case, but no data
loss. Until PostgreSQL can do this, then it will not be acceptable for
real critical production use. This is not to knock PostgreSQL, because
it is a very good database system, and clearly the best open-source one.
It even has feature advantages over the commercial systems. But at the
end of the day, unless you have complete understanding of the I/O system
from write(2) through to the disk system, the only sure ways to protect
against partial writes are by "careful writes" (in the WAL log or
elsewhere, writing pages twice), or by requiring (and allowing) users to
do log-replay recovery when a file is corrupted by a partial write. As
long as there is a UPS, and the operating system doesn't crash, then
there still should be no partial writes.

If we log pages to WAL, they are useless when archived (after a
checkpoint). So either we have a separate "log" for them (the ping-pong
file), or we should at least remove them when archived, which makes log
archiving more complex but is perfectly doable.

Finally, I would love to hear why we are using the operating system
buffer manager at all. The OS is acting as a secondary buffer manager
for us. Why is that? What flaw in our I/O system does this reveal? I
know that:

>We sync only WAL, not the other pages, except for the sync() call we do
> during checkpoint when we discard old WAL files.

But this is probably not a good thing. We should only be writing blocks
when they need to be on disk. We should not be expecting the OS to write
them "sometime later" and avoid blocking (as long) for the write. If we
need that, then our buffer management is wrong and we need to fix it.
The reason we are doing this is because we expect the OS buffer manager
to do asynchronous I/O for us, but then we don't control the order. That
is the reason why we have to call fdatasync(), to create "sequence
points".

The reason we have performance problems with either D_OSYNC or fdatasync
on the normal relations is because we have no dbflush process. This
causes an unacceptable amount of I/O blocking by other transactions.

The ORACLE people were not kidding when they said that they could not
certify Linux for production use until it supported O_DSYNC. Can you
explain why that was the case?

Finally, let me apologize if the above comes across as somewhat
belligerent. I know very well that I can't compete with you guys for
knowledge of the PosgreSQL system. I am still at a loss when I look at
the optimizer and executor modules, and it will take some time before I
can follow discussion of that area. Even then, I doubt my ability to
compare with people like Mr. Lane and Mr. Momjian in experience and
general intelligence, or in the field of database programming and
software development in particular. However, this discussion and a
search of the pgsql-hackers archives reveals this problem to be the KEY
area of PostgreSQL's failing, and general misunderstanding, when
compared to its commercial competitors.

Sincerely, 

	J. R. Nield

-- 
J. R. Nield
jrnield@usol.com




From pgsql-hackers-owner+M24090@postgresql.org Mon Jun 24 12:38:04 2002
Return-path: <pgsql-hackers-owner+M24090@postgresql.org>
Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g5OGc3F05962
	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 12:38:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 81B9F4768DF; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 10:18:05 -0400 (EDT)
Mailbox-Line: From pgman@candle.pha.pa.us  Mon Jun 24 10:18:05 2002
Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP
	id 81F08476473; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 08:55:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDDFA475CC3
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 08:37:44 -0400 (EDT)
Mailbox-Line: From pgman@candle.pha.pa.us  Mon Jun 24 08:37:44 2002
Received: from candle.pha.pa.us (216-55-132-35.dsl.san-diego.abac.net [216.55.132.35])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C971475858
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 22:47:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from pgman@localhost)
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) id g5O2ki712992;
	Sun, 23 Jun 2002 22:46:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-ID: <200206240246.g5O2ki712992@candle.pha.pa.us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE
In-Reply-To: <1024882167.1793.733.camel@localhost.localdomain>
To: "J. R. Nield" <jrnield@usol.com>
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2002 22:46:44 -0400 (EDT)
cc: Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
   Michael Loftis <mloftis@wgops.com>, mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com>,
   PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL97 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.4 required=5.0
	tests=IN_REP_TO
	version=2.30
Status: OR

J. R. Nield wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-06-23 at 15:36, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Yes, I don't see writing to two files vs. one to be any win, especially
> > when we need to fsync both of them.  What I would really like is to
> > avoid the double I/O of writing to WAL and to the data file;  improving
> > that would be a huge win.
> > 
> 
> If is impossible to do what you want. You can not protect against
> partial writes without writing pages twice and calling fdatasync between
> them while going through a generic filesystem. The best disk array will
> not protect you if the operating system does not align block writes to
> the structure of the underlying device. Even with raw devices, you need
> special support or knowledge of the operating system and/or the disk
> device to ensure that each write request will be atomic to the
> underlying hardware. 

Yes, I suspected it was impossible, but that doesn't mean I want it any
less.  ;-)

> All other systems rely on the fact that you can recover a damaged file
> using the log archive. This means downtime in the rare case, but no data
> loss. Until PostgreSQL can do this, then it will not be acceptable for
> real critical production use. This is not to knock PostgreSQL, because
> it is a very good database system, and clearly the best open-source one.
> It even has feature advantages over the commercial systems. But at the
> end of the day, unless you have complete understanding of the I/O system
> from write(2) through to the disk system, the only sure ways to protect
> against partial writes are by "careful writes" (in the WAL log or
> elsewhere, writing pages twice), or by requiring (and allowing) users to
> do log-replay recovery when a file is corrupted by a partial write. As
> long as there is a UPS, and the operating system doesn't crash, then
> there still should be no partial writes.

You are talking point-in-time recovery, a major missing feature right
next to replication, and I agree it makes PostgreSQL unacceptable for
some applications.  Point taken.

And the interesting thing you are saying is that with point-in-time
recovery, we don't need to write pre-write images of pages because if we
detect a partial page write, we then abort the database and tell the
user to do a point-in-time recovery, basically meaning we are using the
previous full backup as our pre-write page image and roll forward using
the logical logs.  This is clearly a nice thing to be able to do because
it let's you take a pre-write image of the page once during full backup,
keep it offline, and bring it back in the rare case of a full page write
failure.  I now can see how the MSSQL tearoff-bits would be used, not
for recovery, but to detect a partial write and force a point-in-time
recovery from the administrator.


> If we log pages to WAL, they are useless when archived (after a
> checkpoint). So either we have a separate "log" for them (the ping-pong
> file), or we should at least remove them when archived, which makes log
> archiving more complex but is perfectly doable.

Yes, that is how we will do point-in-time recovery;  remove the
pre-write page images and archive the rest.  It is more complex, but
having the fsync all in one file is too big a win.

> Finally, I would love to hear why we are using the operating system
> buffer manager at all. The OS is acting as a secondary buffer manager
> for us. Why is that? What flaw in our I/O system does this reveal? I
> know that:
> 
> >We sync only WAL, not the other pages, except for the sync() call we do
> > during checkpoint when we discard old WAL files.
> 
> But this is probably not a good thing. We should only be writing blocks
> when they need to be on disk. We should not be expecting the OS to write
> them "sometime later" and avoid blocking (as long) for the write. If we
> need that, then our buffer management is wrong and we need to fix it.
> The reason we are doing this is because we expect the OS buffer manager
> to do asynchronous I/O for us, but then we don't control the order. That
> is the reason why we have to call fdatasync(), to create "sequence
> points".

Yes.  I think I understand.  It is true we have to fsync WAL because we
can't control the individual writes by the OS.

> The reason we have performance problems with either D_OSYNC or fdatasync
> on the normal relations is because we have no dbflush process. This
> causes an unacceptable amount of I/O blocking by other transactions.

Uh, that would force writes all over the disk. Why do we really care how
the OS writes them?  If we are going to fsync, let's just do the one
file and be done with it.  What would a separate flusher process really
buy us  if it has to use fsync too. The main backend doesn't have to
wait for the fsync, but then again, we can't say the transaction is
committed until it hits the disk, so how does a flusher help?

> The ORACLE people were not kidding when they said that they could not
> certify Linux for production use until it supported O_DSYNC. Can you
> explain why that was the case?

I don't see O_DSYNC as very different from write/fsync(or fdatasync).

> Finally, let me apologize if the above comes across as somewhat
> belligerent. I know very well that I can't compete with you guys for
> knowledge of the PostgreSQL system. I am still at a loss when I look at
> the optimizer and executor modules, and it will take some time before I
> can follow discussion of that area. Even then, I doubt my ability to
> compare with people like Mr. Lane and Mr. Momjian in experience and
> general intelligence, or in the field of database programming and
> software development in particular. However, this discussion and a
> search of the pgsql-hackers archives reveals this problem to be the KEY
> area of PostgreSQL's failing, and general misunderstanding, when
> compared to its commercial competitors.

We appreciate your ideas.  Few of us are professional db folks so we are
always looking for good ideas.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org



From cjs@cynic.net Sun Jun 23 23:40:59 2002
Return-path: <cjs@cynic.net>
Received: from academic.cynic.net (academic.cynic.net [63.144.177.3])
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g5O3evF17903
	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Sun, 23 Jun 2002 23:40:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from angelic-academic.cvpn.cynic.net (angelic-academic.cvpn.cynic.net [198.73.220.224])
	by academic.cynic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 37F36F820; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 03:40:54 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 12:40:51 +0900 (JST)
From: Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net>
To: "J. R. Nield" <jrnield@usol.com>
cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
   Michael Loftis <mloftis@wgops.com>, mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com>,
   PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE
In-Reply-To: <1024882167.1793.733.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.43.0206241150500.7326-100000@angelic.cynic.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: OR

On 23 Jun 2002, J. R. Nield wrote:

> If is impossible to do what you want. You can not protect against
> partial writes without writing pages twice and calling fdatasync
> between them while going through a generic filesystem.

I agree with this.

> The best disk array will not protect you if the operating system does
> not align block writes to the structure of the underlying device.

This I don't quite understand. Assuming you're using a SCSI drive
(and this mostly applies to ATAPI/IDE, too), you can do naught but
align block writes to the structure of the underlying device. When you
initiate a SCSI WRITE command, you start by telling the device at which
block to start writing and how many blocks you intend to write. Then you
start passing the data.

(See http://www.danbbs.dk/~dino/SCSI/SCSI2-09.html#9.2.21 for parameter
details for the SCSI WRITE(10) command. You may find the SCSI 2
specification, at http://www.danbbs.dk/~dino/SCSI/ to be a useful
reference here.)

> Even with raw devices, you need special support or knowledge of the
> operating system and/or the disk device to ensure that each write
> request will be atomic to the underlying hardware.

Well, so here I guess you're talking about two things:

    1. When you request, say, an 8K block write, will the OS really
    write it to disk in a single 8K or multiple of 8K SCSI write
    command?

    2. Does the SCSI device you're writing to consider these writes to
    be transactional. That is, if the write is interrupted before being
    completed, does the SCSI device guarantee that the partially-sent
    data is not written, and the old data is maintained? And of course,
    does it guarantee that, when it acknowledges a write, that write is
    now in stable storage and will never go away?

Both of these are not hard to guarantee, actually. For a BSD-based OS,
for example, just make sure that your filesystem block size is the
same as or a multiple of the database block size. BSD will never write
anything other than a block or a sequence of blocks to a disk in a
single SCSI transaction (unless you've got a really odd SCSI driver).
And for your disk, buy a Baydel or Clarion disk array, or something
similar.

Given that it's not hard to set up a system that meets these criteria,
and this is in fact commonly done for database servers, it would seem a
good idea for postgres to have the option to take advantage of the time
and money spent and adjust its performance upward appropriately.

> All other systems rely on the fact that you can recover a damaged file
> using the log archive.

Not exactly. For MS SQL Server, at any rate, if it detects a page tear
you cannot restore based on the log file alone. You need a full or
partial backup that includes that entire torn block.

> This means downtime in the rare case, but no data loss. Until
> PostgreSQL can do this, then it will not be acceptable for real
> critical production use.

It seems to me that it is doing this right now. In fact, it's more
reliable than some commerial systems (such as SQL Server) because it can
recover from a torn block with just the logfile.

> But at the end of the day, unless you have complete understanding of
> the I/O system from write(2) through to the disk system, the only sure
> ways to protect against partial writes are by "careful writes" (in
> the WAL log or elsewhere, writing pages twice), or by requiring (and
> allowing) users to do log-replay recovery when a file is corrupted by
> a partial write.

I don't understand how, without a copy of the old data that was in the
torn block, you can restore that block from just log file entries. Can
you explain this to me? Take, as an example, a block with ten tuples,
only one of which has been changed "recently." (I.e., only that change
is in the log files.)

> If we log pages to WAL, they are useless when archived (after a
> checkpoint). So either we have a separate "log" for them (the
> ping-pong file), or we should at least remove them when archived,
> which makes log archiving more complex but is perfectly doable.

Right. That seems to me a better option, since we've now got only one
write point on the disk rather than two.

> Finally, I would love to hear why we are using the operating system
> buffer manager at all. The OS is acting as a secondary buffer manager
> for us. Why is that? What flaw in our I/O system does this reveal?

It's acting as a "second-level" buffer manager, yes, but to say it's
"secondary" may be a bit misleading. On most of the systems I've set
up, the OS buffer cache is doing the vast majority of the work, and the
postgres buffering is fairly minimal.

There are some good (and some perhaps not-so-good) reasons to do it this
way. I'll list them more or less in the order of best to worst:

    1. The OS knows where the blocks physically reside on disk, and
    postgres does not. Therefore it's in the interest of postgresql to
    dispatch write responsibility back to the OS as quickly as possible
    so that the OS can prioritize requests appropriately. Most operating
    systems use an "elevator" algorithm to minimize disk head movement;
    but if the OS does not have a block that it could write while the
    head is "on the way" to another request, it can't write it in that
    head pass.

    2. Postgres does not know about any "bank-switching" tricks for
    mapping more physical memory than it has address space. Thus, on
    32-bit machines, postgres might be limited to mapping 2 or 3 GB of
    memory, even though the machine has, say, 6 GB of physical RAM. The
    OS can use all of the available memory for caching; postgres cannot.

    3. A lot of work has been put into the seek algorithms, read-ahead
    algorithms, block allocation algorithms, etc. in the OS. Why
    duplicate all that work again in postgres?

When you say things like the following:

> We should only be writing blocks when they need to be on disk. We
> should not be expecting the OS to write them "sometime later" and
> avoid blocking (as long) for the write. If we need that, then our
> buffer management is wrong and we need to fix it.

you appear to be making the arugment that we should take the route of
other database systems, and use raw devices and our own management of
disk block allocation. If so, you might want first to look back through
the archives at the discussion I and several others had about this a
month or two ago. After looking in detail at what NetBSD, at least, does
in terms of its disk I/O algorithms and buffering, I've pretty much come
around, at least for the moment, to the attitude that we should stick
with using the OS. I wouldn't mind seeing postgres be able to manage all
of this stuff, but it's a *lot* of work for not all that much benefit
that I can see.

> The ORACLE people were not kidding when they said that they could not
> certify Linux for production use until it supported O_DSYNC. Can you
> explain why that was the case?

I'm suspecting it's because Linux at the time had no raw devices, so
O_DSYNC was the only other possible method of making sure that disk
writes actually got to disk.

You certainly don't want to use O_DSYNC if you can use another method,
because O_DSYNC still goes through the the operating system's buffer
cache, wasting memory and double-caching things. If you're doing your
own management, you need either to use a raw device or open files with
the flag that indicates that the buffer cache should not be used at all
for reads from and writes to that file.

> However, this discussion and a search of the pgsql-hackers archives
> reveals this problem to be the KEY area of PostgreSQL's failing, and
> general misunderstanding, when compared to its commercial competitors.

No, I think it's just that you're under a few minor misapprehensions
here about what postgres and the OS are actually doing. As I said, I
went through this whole exact argument a month or two ago, on this very
list, and I came around to the idea that what postgres is doing now
works quite well, at least on NetBSD. (Most other OSes have disk I/O
algorithms that are pretty much as good or better.) There might be a
very slight advantage to doing all one's own I/O management, but it's
a huge amount of work, and I think that much effort could be much more
usefully applied to other areas.

Just as a side note, I've been a NetBSD developer since about '96,
and have been delving into the details of OS design since well before
that time, so I'm coming to this with what I hope is reasonably good
knowledge of how disks work and how operating systems use them. (Not
that this should stop you from pointing out holes in my arguments. :-))

cjs
-- 
Curt Sampson  <cjs@cynic.net>   +81 90 7737 2974   http://www.netbsd.org
    Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light.  --XTC


From pgsql-hackers-owner+M24112@postgresql.org Mon Jun 24 18:16:36 2002
Return-path: <pgsql-hackers-owner+M24112@postgresql.org>
Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g5OMGaF00910
	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 18:16:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id A2EF1476475; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 16:43:38 -0400 (EDT)
Mailbox-Line: From tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us  Mon Jun 24 16:43:38 2002
Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP
	id BA57D476148; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 14:14:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93D6A477214
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 13:59:17 -0400 (EDT)
Mailbox-Line: From tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us  Mon Jun 24 13:59:17 2002
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D70AA476401
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 10:06:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g5OE6J117666;
	Mon, 24 Jun 2002 10:06:19 -0400 (EDT)
To: Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net>
cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>, "J. R. Nield" <jrnield@usol.com>,
   Michael Loftis <mloftis@wgops.com>, mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com>,
   PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE 
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.4.43.0206240907160.511-100000@angelic.cynic.net> 
References: <Pine.NEB.4.43.0206240907160.511-100000@angelic.cynic.net>
Comments: In-reply-to Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net>
	message dated "Mon, 24 Jun 2002 09:09:30 +0900"
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 10:06:19 -0400
Message-ID: <17663.1024927579@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.3 required=5.0
	tests=IN_REP_TO,X_NOT_PRESENT
	version=2.30
Status: OR

> On Sun, 23 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Yes, I don't see writing to two files vs. one to be any win, especially
>> when we need to fsync both of them.  What I would really like is to
>> avoid the double I/O of writing to WAL and to the data file;  improving
>> that would be a huge win.

I don't believe it's possible to eliminate the double I/O.  Keep in mind
though that in the ideal case (plenty of shared buffers) you are only
paying two writes per modified block per checkpoint interval --- one to
the WAL during the first write of the interval, and then a write to the
real datafile issued by the checkpoint process.  Anything that requires
transaction commits to write data blocks will likely result in more I/O
not less, at least for blocks that are modified by several successive
transactions.

The only thing I've been able to think of that seems like it might
improve matters is to make the WAL writing logic aware of the layout
of buffer pages --- specifically, to know that our pages generally
contain an uninteresting "hole" in the middle, and not write the hole.
Optimistically this might reduce the WAL data volume by something
approaching 50%; though pessimistically (if most pages are near full)
it wouldn't help much.

This was not very feasible when the WAL code was designed because the
buffer manager needed to cope with both normal pages and pg_log pages,
but as of 7.2 I think it'd be safe to assume that all pages have the
standard layout.

			regards, tom lane



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
    (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org)



From pgsql-hackers-owner+M24116@postgresql.org Mon Jun 24 20:32:07 2002
Return-path: <pgsql-hackers-owner+M24116@postgresql.org>
Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g5P0W7F10985
	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 20:32:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id EBCE547632E; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 18:54:34 -0400 (EDT)
Mailbox-Line: From pgman@candle.pha.pa.us  Mon Jun 24 18:54:34 2002
Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP
	id 3EB93476D85; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:12:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBC20476E2E
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 14:54:40 -0400 (EDT)
Mailbox-Line: From pgman@candle.pha.pa.us  Mon Jun 24 14:54:40 2002
Received: from candle.pha.pa.us (216-55-132-35.dsl.san-diego.abac.net [216.55.132.35])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C8874760C2
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 12:40:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from pgman@localhost)
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) id g5OGeVY06116;
	Mon, 24 Jun 2002 12:40:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-ID: <200206241640.g5OGeVY06116@candle.pha.pa.us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE
In-Reply-To: <17663.1024927579@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 12:40:31 -0400 (EDT)
cc: Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net>, "J. R. Nield" <jrnield@usol.com>,
   Michael Loftis <mloftis@wgops.com>, mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com>,
   PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL97 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.4 required=5.0
	tests=IN_REP_TO
	version=2.30
Status: OR

Tom Lane wrote:
> > On Sun, 23 Jun 2002, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >> Yes, I don't see writing to two files vs. one to be any win, especially
> >> when we need to fsync both of them.  What I would really like is to
> >> avoid the double I/O of writing to WAL and to the data file;  improving
> >> that would be a huge win.
> 
> I don't believe it's possible to eliminate the double I/O.  Keep in mind
> though that in the ideal case (plenty of shared buffers) you are only
> paying two writes per modified block per checkpoint interval --- one to
> the WAL during the first write of the interval, and then a write to the
> real datafile issued by the checkpoint process.  Anything that requires
> transaction commits to write data blocks will likely result in more I/O
> not less, at least for blocks that are modified by several successive
> transactions.
> 
> The only thing I've been able to think of that seems like it might
> improve matters is to make the WAL writing logic aware of the layout
> of buffer pages --- specifically, to know that our pages generally
> contain an uninteresting "hole" in the middle, and not write the hole.
> Optimistically this might reduce the WAL data volume by something
> approaching 50%; though pessimistically (if most pages are near full)
> it wouldn't help much.

Good idea.  How about putting the page through or TOAST compression
routine before writing it to WAL?  Should be pretty easy and fast and
doesn't require any knowledge of the page format.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org



From pgsql-hackers-owner+M24114@postgresql.org Mon Jun 24 17:54:35 2002
Return-path: <pgsql-hackers-owner+M24114@postgresql.org>
Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g5OLsZF28642
	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:54:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id BD68F47683C; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 16:46:24 -0400 (EDT)
Mailbox-Line: From tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us  Mon Jun 24 16:46:24 2002
Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP
	id B2719476B31; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 16:01:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 950004770BC
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 14:59:46 -0400 (EDT)
Mailbox-Line: From tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us  Mon Jun 24 14:59:46 2002
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0756475BB7
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 13:11:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g5OHB1119826;
	Mon, 24 Jun 2002 13:11:02 -0400 (EDT)
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
cc: Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net>, "J. R. Nield" <jrnield@usol.com>,
   Michael Loftis <mloftis@wgops.com>, mlw <markw@mohawksoft.com>,
   PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE 
In-Reply-To: <200206241640.g5OGeVY06116@candle.pha.pa.us> 
References: <200206241640.g5OGeVY06116@candle.pha.pa.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
	message dated "Mon, 24 Jun 2002 12:40:31 -0400"
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 13:11:01 -0400
Message-ID: <19823.1024938661@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.3 required=5.0
	tests=IN_REP_TO,X_NOT_PRESENT
	version=2.30
Status: OR

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>> The only thing I've been able to think of that seems like it might
>> improve matters is to make the WAL writing logic aware of the layout
>> of buffer pages --- specifically, to know that our pages generally
>> contain an uninteresting "hole" in the middle, and not write the hole.
>> Optimistically this might reduce the WAL data volume by something
>> approaching 50%; though pessimistically (if most pages are near full)
>> it wouldn't help much.

> Good idea.  How about putting the page through or TOAST compression
> routine before writing it to WAL?  Should be pretty easy and fast and
> doesn't require any knowledge of the page format.

Easy, maybe, but fast definitely NOT.  The compressor is not speedy.
Given that we have to be holding various locks while we build WAL
records, I do not think it's a good idea to add CPU time there.

Also, compressing already-compressed data is not a win ...

			regards, tom lane



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly



From jrnield@usol.com Mon Jun 24 16:49:25 2002
Return-path: <jrnield@usol.com>
Received: from hades.usol.com (IDENT:root@hades.usol.com [208.232.58.41])
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g5OKnNF23393
	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 16:49:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from 08-113.024.popsite.net (08-113.024.popsite.net [66.19.4.113])
	by hades.usol.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g5OKnHV19100;
	Mon, 24 Jun 2002 16:49:18 -0400
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE
From: "J. R. Nield" <jrnield@usol.com>
To: Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net>
cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
   PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.4.43.0206241150500.7326-100000@angelic.cynic.net>
References: <Pine.NEB.4.43.0206241150500.7326-100000@angelic.cynic.net>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.3 (1.0.3-6) 
Date: 24 Jun 2002 16:49:42 -0400
Message-ID: <1024951786.1793.865.camel@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Status: ORr

On Sun, 2002-06-23 at 23:40, Curt Sampson wrote:
> On 23 Jun 2002, J. R. Nield wrote:
> 
> > If is impossible to do what you want. You can not protect against
> > partial writes without writing pages twice and calling fdatasync
> > between them while going through a generic filesystem.
> 
> I agree with this.
> 
> > The best disk array will not protect you if the operating system does
> > not align block writes to the structure of the underlying device.
> 
> This I don't quite understand. Assuming you're using a SCSI drive
> (and this mostly applies to ATAPI/IDE, too), you can do naught but
> align block writes to the structure of the underlying device. When you
> initiate a SCSI WRITE command, you start by telling the device at which
> block to start writing and how many blocks you intend to write. Then you
> start passing the data.
> 

All I'm saying is that the entire postgresql block write must be
converted into exactly one SCSI write command in all cases, and I don't
know a portable way to ensure this. 

> > Even with raw devices, you need special support or knowledge of the
> > operating system and/or the disk device to ensure that each write
> > request will be atomic to the underlying hardware.
> 
> Well, so here I guess you're talking about two things:
> 
>     1. When you request, say, an 8K block write, will the OS really
>     write it to disk in a single 8K or multiple of 8K SCSI write
>     command?
> 
>     2. Does the SCSI device you're writing to consider these writes to
>     be transactional. That is, if the write is interrupted before being
>     completed, does the SCSI device guarantee that the partially-sent
>     data is not written, and the old data is maintained? And of course,
>     does it guarantee that, when it acknowledges a write, that write is
>     now in stable storage and will never go away?
> 
> Both of these are not hard to guarantee, actually. For a BSD-based OS,
> for example, just make sure that your filesystem block size is the
> same as or a multiple of the database block size. BSD will never write
> anything other than a block or a sequence of blocks to a disk in a
> single SCSI transaction (unless you've got a really odd SCSI driver).
> And for your disk, buy a Baydel or Clarion disk array, or something
> similar.
> 
> Given that it's not hard to set up a system that meets these criteria,
> and this is in fact commonly done for database servers, it would seem a
> good idea for postgres to have the option to take advantage of the time
> and money spent and adjust its performance upward appropriately.

I agree with this. My point was only that you need to know what
guarantees your operating system/hardware combination provides on a
case-by-case basis, and there is no standard way for a program to
discover this. Most system administrators are not going to know this
either, unless databases are their main responsibility.

> 
> > All other systems rely on the fact that you can recover a damaged file
> > using the log archive.
> 
> Not exactly. For MS SQL Server, at any rate, if it detects a page tear
> you cannot restore based on the log file alone. You need a full or
> partial backup that includes that entire torn block.
> 

I should have been more specific: you need a backup of the file from
some time ago, plus all the archived logs from then until the current
log sequence number.

> > This means downtime in the rare case, but no data loss. Until
> > PostgreSQL can do this, then it will not be acceptable for real
> > critical production use.
> 
> It seems to me that it is doing this right now. In fact, it's more
> reliable than some commerial systems (such as SQL Server) because it can
> recover from a torn block with just the logfile.

Again, what I meant to say is that the commercial systems can recover
with an old file backup + logs. How old the backup can be depends only
on how much time you are willing to spend playing the logs forward. So
if you do a full backup once a week, and multiplex and backup the logs,
then even if a backup tape gets destroyed you can still survive. It just
takes longer.

Also, postgreSQL can't recover from any other type of block corruption,
while the commercial systems can. That's what I meant by the "critical
production use" comment, which was sort-of unfair.

So I would say they are equally reliable for torn pages (but not bad
blocks), and the commercial systems let you trade potential recovery
time for not having to write the blocks twice. You do need to back-up
the log archives though.

> 
> > But at the end of the day, unless you have complete understanding of
> > the I/O system from write(2) through to the disk system, the only sure
> > ways to protect against partial writes are by "careful writes" (in
> > the WAL log or elsewhere, writing pages twice), or by requiring (and
> > allowing) users to do log-replay recovery when a file is corrupted by
> > a partial write.
> 
> I don't understand how, without a copy of the old data that was in the
> torn block, you can restore that block from just log file entries. Can
> you explain this to me? Take, as an example, a block with ten tuples,
> only one of which has been changed "recently." (I.e., only that change
> is in the log files.)
>
> 
> > If we log pages to WAL, they are useless when archived (after a
> > checkpoint). So either we have a separate "log" for them (the
> > ping-pong file), or we should at least remove them when archived,
> > which makes log archiving more complex but is perfectly doable.
> 
> Right. That seems to me a better option, since we've now got only one
> write point on the disk rather than two.

OK. I agree with this now.

> 
> > Finally, I would love to hear why we are using the operating system
> > buffer manager at all. The OS is acting as a secondary buffer manager
> > for us. Why is that? What flaw in our I/O system does this reveal?
> 
> It's acting as a "second-level" buffer manager, yes, but to say it's
> "secondary" may be a bit misleading. On most of the systems I've set
> up, the OS buffer cache is doing the vast majority of the work, and the
> postgres buffering is fairly minimal.
> 
> There are some good (and some perhaps not-so-good) reasons to do it this
> way. I'll list them more or less in the order of best to worst:
> 
>     1. The OS knows where the blocks physically reside on disk, and
>     postgres does not. Therefore it's in the interest of postgresql to
>     dispatch write responsibility back to the OS as quickly as possible
>     so that the OS can prioritize requests appropriately. Most operating
>     systems use an "elevator" algorithm to minimize disk head movement;
>     but if the OS does not have a block that it could write while the
>     head is "on the way" to another request, it can't write it in that
>     head pass.
> 
>     2. Postgres does not know about any "bank-switching" tricks for
>     mapping more physical memory than it has address space. Thus, on
>     32-bit machines, postgres might be limited to mapping 2 or 3 GB of
>     memory, even though the machine has, say, 6 GB of physical RAM. The
>     OS can use all of the available memory for caching; postgres cannot.
> 
>     3. A lot of work has been put into the seek algorithms, read-ahead
>     algorithms, block allocation algorithms, etc. in the OS. Why
>     duplicate all that work again in postgres?
> 
> When you say things like the following:
> 
> > We should only be writing blocks when they need to be on disk. We
> > should not be expecting the OS to write them "sometime later" and
> > avoid blocking (as long) for the write. If we need that, then our
> > buffer management is wrong and we need to fix it.
> 
> you appear to be making the arugment that we should take the route of
> other database systems, and use raw devices and our own management of
> disk block allocation. If so, you might want first to look back through
> the archives at the discussion I and several others had about this a
> month or two ago. After looking in detail at what NetBSD, at least, does
> in terms of its disk I/O algorithms and buffering, I've pretty much come
> around, at least for the moment, to the attitude that we should stick
> with using the OS. I wouldn't mind seeing postgres be able to manage all
> of this stuff, but it's a *lot* of work for not all that much benefit
> that I can see.

I'll back off on that. I don't know if we want to use the OS buffer
manager, but shouldn't we try to have our buffer manager group writes
together by files, and pro-actively get them out to disk? Right now, it
looks like all our write requests are delayed as long as possible and
the order in which they are written is pretty-much random, as is the
backend that writes the block, so there is no locality of reference even
when the blocks are adjacent on disk, and the write calls are spread-out
over all the backends.

Would it not be the case that things like read-ahead, grouping writes,
and caching written data are probably best done by PostgreSQL, because
only our buffer manager can understand when they will be useful or when
they will thrash the cache?

I may likely be wrong on this, and I haven't done any performance
testing. I shouldn't have brought this up alongside the logging issues,
but there seemed to be some question about whether the OS was actually
doing all these things behind the scene.


> 
> > The ORACLE people were not kidding when they said that they could not
> > certify Linux for production use until it supported O_DSYNC. Can you
> > explain why that was the case?
> 
> I'm suspecting it's because Linux at the time had no raw devices, so
> O_DSYNC was the only other possible method of making sure that disk
> writes actually got to disk.
> 
> You certainly don't want to use O_DSYNC if you can use another method,
> because O_DSYNC still goes through the the operating system's buffer
> cache, wasting memory and double-caching things. If you're doing your
> own management, you need either to use a raw device or open files with
> the flag that indicates that the buffer cache should not be used at all
> for reads from and writes to that file.

Would O_DSYNC|O_RSYNC turn off the cache? 

> 
> > However, this discussion and a search of the pgsql-hackers archives
> > reveals this problem to be the KEY area of PostgreSQL's failing, and
> > general misunderstanding, when compared to its commercial competitors.
> 
> No, I think it's just that you're under a few minor misapprehensions
> here about what postgres and the OS are actually doing. As I said, I
> went through this whole exact argument a month or two ago, on this very
> list, and I came around to the idea that what postgres is doing now
> works quite well, at least on NetBSD. (Most other OSes have disk I/O
> algorithms that are pretty much as good or better.) There might be a
> very slight advantage to doing all one's own I/O management, but it's
> a huge amount of work, and I think that much effort could be much more
> usefully applied to other areas.

I will look for that discussion in the archives.

The logging issue is a key one I think. At least I would be very nervous
as a DBA if I were running a system where any damaged file would cause
data loss.

Does anyone know what the major barriers to infinite log replay are in
PostgreSQL? I'm trying to look for everything that might need to be
changed outside xlog.c, but surely this has come up before. Searching
the archives hasn't revealed much.



As to the I/O issue:

Since you know a lot about NetBSD internals, I'd be interested in
hearing about what postgresql looks like to the NetBSD buffer manager.
Am I right that strings of successive writes get randomized? What do our
cache-hit percentages look like? I'm going to do some experimenting with
this.

> 
> Just as a side note, I've been a NetBSD developer since about '96,
> and have been delving into the details of OS design since well before
> that time, so I'm coming to this with what I hope is reasonably good
> knowledge of how disks work and how operating systems use them. (Not
> that this should stop you from pointing out holes in my arguments. :-))
> 

This stuff is very difficult to get right. Glad to know you follow this
list.


> cjs
> -- 
> Curt Sampson  <cjs@cynic.net>   +81 90 7737 2974   http://www.netbsd.org
>     Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light.  --XTC
> 
-- 
J. R. Nield
jrnield@usol.com




From tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us Mon Jun 24 17:16:06 2002
Return-path: <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (root@[192.204.191.242])
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g5OLG5F25284
	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:16:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g5OLG2121379;
	Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:16:02 -0400 (EDT)
To: "J. R. Nield" <jrnield@usol.com>
cc: Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net>, Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>,
   PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE 
In-Reply-To: <1024951786.1793.865.camel@localhost.localdomain> 
References: <Pine.NEB.4.43.0206241150500.7326-100000@angelic.cynic.net> <1024951786.1793.865.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Comments: In-reply-to "J. R. Nield" <jrnield@usol.com>
	message dated "24 Jun 2002 16:49:42 -0400"
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:16:01 -0400
Message-ID: <21376.1024953361@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Status: OR

"J. R. Nield" <jrnield@usol.com> writes:
> Also, postgreSQL can't recover from any other type of block corruption,
> while the commercial systems can.

Say again?

> Would it not be the case that things like read-ahead, grouping writes,
> and caching written data are probably best done by PostgreSQL, because
> only our buffer manager can understand when they will be useful or when
> they will thrash the cache?

I think you have been missing the point.  No one denies that there will
be some incremental gain if we do all that.  However, the conclusion of
everyone who has thought much about it (and I see Curt has joined that
group) is that the effort would be far out of proportion to the probable
gain.  There are a lot of other things we desperately need to spend time
on that would not amount to re-engineering large quantities of OS-level
code.  Given that most Unixen have perfectly respectable disk management
subsystems, we prefer to tune our code to make use of that stuff, rather
than follow the "conventional wisdom" that databases need to bypass it.

Oracle can afford to do that sort of thing because they have umpteen
thousand developers available.  Postgres does not.

			regards, tom lane

From pgsql-hackers-owner+M24128@postgresql.org Mon Jun 24 22:01:58 2002
Return-path: <pgsql-hackers-owner+M24128@postgresql.org>
Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g5P21vF19918
	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 22:01:57 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 540B8475B33; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 21:34:40 -0400 (EDT)
Mailbox-Line: From pgman@candle.pha.pa.us  Mon Jun 24 21:34:40 2002
Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP
	id 0A13F476965; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 19:30:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4F62476E4A
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 18:53:59 -0400 (EDT)
Mailbox-Line: From pgman@candle.pha.pa.us  Mon Jun 24 18:53:59 2002
Received: from candle.pha.pa.us (216-55-132-35.dsl.san-diego.abac.net [216.55.132.35])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36043475BF6
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:25:28 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from pgman@localhost)
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) id g5OLPFG26140;
	Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:25:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-ID: <200206242125.g5OLPFG26140@candle.pha.pa.us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE
In-Reply-To: <1024951786.1793.865.camel@localhost.localdomain>
To: "J. R. Nield" <jrnield@usol.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:25:14 -0400 (EDT)
cc: Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
   PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL97 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.4 required=5.0
	tests=IN_REP_TO
	version=2.30
Status: OR

J. R. Nield wrote:
> > This I don't quite understand. Assuming you're using a SCSI drive
> > (and this mostly applies to ATAPI/IDE, too), you can do naught but
> > align block writes to the structure of the underlying device. When you
> > initiate a SCSI WRITE command, you start by telling the device at which
> > block to start writing and how many blocks you intend to write. Then you
> > start passing the data.
> > 
> 
> All I'm saying is that the entire postgresql block write must be
> converted into exactly one SCSI write command in all cases, and I don't
> know a portable way to ensure this. 

...

> I agree with this. My point was only that you need to know what
> guarantees your operating system/hardware combination provides on a
> case-by-case basis, and there is no standard way for a program to
> discover this. Most system administrators are not going to know this
> either, unless databases are their main responsibility.

Yes, agreed.  >1% are going to know the answer to this question so we
have to assume worst case.

> > It seems to me that it is doing this right now. In fact, it's more
> > reliable than some commerial systems (such as SQL Server) because it can
> > recover from a torn block with just the logfile.
> 
> Again, what I meant to say is that the commercial systems can recover
> with an old file backup + logs. How old the backup can be depends only
> on how much time you are willing to spend playing the logs forward. So
> if you do a full backup once a week, and multiplex and backup the logs,
> then even if a backup tape gets destroyed you can still survive. It just
> takes longer.
> 
> Also, postgreSQL can't recover from any other type of block corruption,
> while the commercial systems can. That's what I meant by the "critical
> production use" comment, which was sort-of unfair.
> 
> So I would say they are equally reliable for torn pages (but not bad
> blocks), and the commercial systems let you trade potential recovery
> time for not having to write the blocks twice. You do need to back-up
> the log archives though.

Yes, good tradeoff analysis.  We recover from partial writes quicker,
and don't require saving of log files, _but_ we don't recover from bad
disk blocks.  Good summary.

> I'll back off on that. I don't know if we want to use the OS buffer
> manager, but shouldn't we try to have our buffer manager group writes
> together by files, and pro-actively get them out to disk? Right now, it
> looks like all our write requests are delayed as long as possible and
> the order in which they are written is pretty-much random, as is the
> backend that writes the block, so there is no locality of reference even
> when the blocks are adjacent on disk, and the write calls are spread-out
> over all the backends.
> 
> Would it not be the case that things like read-ahead, grouping writes,
> and caching written data are probably best done by PostgreSQL, because
> only our buffer manager can understand when they will be useful or when
> they will thrash the cache?

The OS should handle all of this.  We are doing main table writes but no
sync until checkpoint, so the OS can keep those blocks around and write
them at its convenience.  It knows the size of the buffer cache and when
stuff is forced to disk.  We can't second-guess that.

> I may likely be wrong on this, and I haven't done any performance
> testing. I shouldn't have brought this up alongside the logging issues,
> but there seemed to be some question about whether the OS was actually
> doing all these things behind the scene.

It had better.  Looking at the kernel source is the way to know.

> Does anyone know what the major barriers to infinite log replay are in
> PostgreSQL? I'm trying to look for everything that might need to be
> changed outside xlog.c, but surely this has come up before. Searching
> the archives hasn't revealed much.

This has been brought up.  Could we just save WAL files and get replay? 
I believe some things have to be added to WAL to allow this, but it
seems possible.  However, the pg_dump is just a data dump and does not
have the file offsets and things.  Somehow you would need a tar-type
backup of the database, and with a running db, it is hard to get a valid
snapshot of that.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly



From tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us Mon Jun 24 17:31:57 2002
Return-path: <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (root@[192.204.191.242])
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g5OLVuF26684
	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:31:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g5OLVu121485;
	Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:31:56 -0400 (EDT)
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
cc: "J. R. Nield" <jrnield@usol.com>, Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net>,
   PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE 
In-Reply-To: <200206242125.g5OLPFG26140@candle.pha.pa.us> 
References: <200206242125.g5OLPFG26140@candle.pha.pa.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
	message dated "Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:25:14 -0400"
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:31:56 -0400
Message-ID: <21482.1024954316@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Status: ORr

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>> Does anyone know what the major barriers to infinite log replay are in
>> PostgreSQL? I'm trying to look for everything that might need to be
>> changed outside xlog.c, but surely this has come up before. Searching
>> the archives hasn't revealed much.

> This has been brought up.  Could we just save WAL files and get replay? 
> I believe some things have to be added to WAL to allow this, but it
> seems possible.

The Red Hat group has been looking at this somewhat; so far there seem
to be some minor tweaks that would be needed, but no showstoppers.

> Somehow you would need a tar-type
> backup of the database, and with a running db, it is hard to get a valid
> snapshot of that.

But you don't *need* a "valid snapshot", only a correct copy of
every block older than the first checkpoint in your WAL log series.
Any inconsistencies in your tar dump will look like repairable damage;
replaying the WAL log will fix 'em.

			regards, tom lane

From pgsql-hackers-owner+M24131@postgresql.org Mon Jun 24 21:15:06 2002
Return-path: <pgsql-hackers-owner+M24131@postgresql.org>
Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g5P1F5F15390
	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 21:15:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id B76174768CC; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 20:59:56 -0400 (EDT)
Mailbox-Line: From tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us  Mon Jun 24 20:59:56 2002
Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP
	id 8724C47742E; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 20:17:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E472476875
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 18:37:46 -0400 (EDT)
Mailbox-Line: From tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us  Mon Jun 24 18:37:46 2002
Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (unknown [192.204.191.242])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFCC9476A7A
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:32:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.11.4/8.11.4) with ESMTP id g5OLVu121485;
	Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:31:56 -0400 (EDT)
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
cc: "J. R. Nield" <jrnield@usol.com>, Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net>,
   PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE 
In-Reply-To: <200206242125.g5OLPFG26140@candle.pha.pa.us> 
References: <200206242125.g5OLPFG26140@candle.pha.pa.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
	message dated "Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:25:14 -0400"
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:31:56 -0400
Message-ID: <21482.1024954316@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.3 required=5.0
	tests=IN_REP_TO,X_NOT_PRESENT
	version=2.30
Status: OR

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>> Does anyone know what the major barriers to infinite log replay are in
>> PostgreSQL? I'm trying to look for everything that might need to be
>> changed outside xlog.c, but surely this has come up before. Searching
>> the archives hasn't revealed much.

> This has been brought up.  Could we just save WAL files and get replay? 
> I believe some things have to be added to WAL to allow this, but it
> seems possible.

The Red Hat group has been looking at this somewhat; so far there seem
to be some minor tweaks that would be needed, but no showstoppers.

> Somehow you would need a tar-type
> backup of the database, and with a running db, it is hard to get a valid
> snapshot of that.

But you don't *need* a "valid snapshot", only a correct copy of
every block older than the first checkpoint in your WAL log series.
Any inconsistencies in your tar dump will look like repairable damage;
replaying the WAL log will fix 'em.

			regards, tom lane



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org



From pgsql-hackers-owner+M24133@postgresql.org Mon Jun 24 22:19:55 2002
Return-path: <pgsql-hackers-owner+M24133@postgresql.org>
Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g5P2JsF21543
	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 22:19:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 42391476E53; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 22:09:49 -0400 (EDT)
Mailbox-Line: From pgman@candle.pha.pa.us  Mon Jun 24 22:09:49 2002
Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP
	id 191654774EB; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 20:26:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EB90476101
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 19:43:19 -0400 (EDT)
Mailbox-Line: From pgman@candle.pha.pa.us  Mon Jun 24 19:43:19 2002
Received: from candle.pha.pa.us (216-55-132-35.dsl.san-diego.abac.net [216.55.132.35])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08018476931
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:33:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from pgman@localhost)
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) id g5OLXhl26908;
	Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:33:43 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-ID: <200206242133.g5OLXhl26908@candle.pha.pa.us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE
In-Reply-To: <21482.1024954316@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2002 17:33:43 -0400 (EDT)
cc: "J. R. Nield" <jrnield@usol.com>, Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net>,
   PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL97 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.4 required=5.0
	tests=IN_REP_TO
	version=2.30
Status: OR

Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> >> Does anyone know what the major barriers to infinite log replay are in
> >> PostgreSQL? I'm trying to look for everything that might need to be
> >> changed outside xlog.c, but surely this has come up before. Searching
> >> the archives hasn't revealed much.
> 
> > This has been brought up.  Could we just save WAL files and get replay? 
> > I believe some things have to be added to WAL to allow this, but it
> > seems possible.
> 
> The Red Hat group has been looking at this somewhat; so far there seem
> to be some minor tweaks that would be needed, but no showstoppers.


Good.

> > Somehow you would need a tar-type
> > backup of the database, and with a running db, it is hard to get a valid
> > snapshot of that.
> 
> But you don't *need* a "valid snapshot", only a correct copy of
> every block older than the first checkpoint in your WAL log series.
> Any inconsistencies in your tar dump will look like repairable damage;
> replaying the WAL log will fix 'em.

Yes, my point was that you need physical file backups, not pg_dump, and
you have to be tricky about the files changing during the backup.  You
_can_ work around changes to the files during backup.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
/usr/local/bin/mime: cannot create /dev/ttyp3: permission denied



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org



From pgsql-hackers-owner+M24139@postgresql.org Tue Jun 25 00:00:22 2002
Return-path: <pgsql-hackers-owner+M24139@postgresql.org>
Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g5P40LF00838
	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 00:00:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id CBAE8476E94; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 23:44:51 -0400 (EDT)
Mailbox-Line: From jrnield@usol.com  Mon Jun 24 23:44:51 2002
Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP
	id C5076476871; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 22:25:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DF57476979
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 22:08:31 -0400 (EDT)
Mailbox-Line: From jrnield@usol.com  Mon Jun 24 22:08:31 2002
Received: from hades.usol.com (hades.usol.com [208.232.58.41])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 298D2476101
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 20:27:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from 08-159.024.popsite.net (08-159.024.popsite.net [66.19.4.159])
	by hades.usol.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g5P0RbV01261;
	Mon, 24 Jun 2002 20:27:37 -0400
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE
From: "J. R. Nield" <jrnield@usol.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
cc: Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net>, Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>,
   PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: <21376.1024953361@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <Pine.NEB.4.43.0206241150500.7326-100000@angelic.cynic.net>
	<1024951786.1793.865.camel@localhost.localdomain> 
	<21376.1024953361@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.3 (1.0.3-6) 
Date: 24 Jun 2002 20:28:00 -0400
Message-ID: <1024964884.3031.876.camel@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.4 required=5.0
	tests=IN_REP_TO
	version=2.30
Status: OR

On Mon, 2002-06-24 at 17:16, Tom Lane wrote:
 
> I think you have been missing the point...  
Yes, this appears to be the case. Thanks especially to Curt for clearing
things up for me.

-- 
J. R. Nield
jrnield@usol.com






---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html



From jrnield@usol.com Mon Jun 24 20:27:45 2002
Return-path: <jrnield@usol.com>
Received: from hades.usol.com (IDENT:root@hades.usol.com [208.232.58.41])
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g5P0RhF10711
	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 20:27:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from 08-159.024.popsite.net (08-159.024.popsite.net [66.19.4.159])
	by hades.usol.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g5P0RbV01261;
	Mon, 24 Jun 2002 20:27:37 -0400
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE
From: "J. R. Nield" <jrnield@usol.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
cc: Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net>, Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>,
   PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: <21376.1024953361@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <Pine.NEB.4.43.0206241150500.7326-100000@angelic.cynic.net>
	<1024951786.1793.865.camel@localhost.localdomain> 
	<21376.1024953361@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.3 (1.0.3-6) 
Date: 24 Jun 2002 20:28:00 -0400
Message-ID: <1024964884.3031.876.camel@localhost.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Status: OR

On Mon, 2002-06-24 at 17:16, Tom Lane wrote:
 
> I think you have been missing the point...  
Yes, this appears to be the case. Thanks especially to Curt for clearing
things up for me.

-- 
J. R. Nield
jrnield@usol.com




From cjs@cynic.net Mon Jun 24 23:32:23 2002
Return-path: <cjs@cynic.net>
Received: from academic.cynic.net ([63.144.177.3])
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g5P3WMF28287
	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Mon, 24 Jun 2002 23:32:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from angelic-academic.cvpn.cynic.net (angelic-academic.cvpn.cynic.net [198.73.220.224])
	by academic.cynic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 28AB5F820; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 03:32:08 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 12:32:05 +0900 (JST)
From: Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net>
To: "J. R. Nield" <jrnield@usol.com>
cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
   PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE
In-Reply-To: <1024951786.1793.865.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.43.0206251229010.17448-100000@angelic.cynic.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: OR

On 24 Jun 2002, J. R. Nield wrote:

> All I'm saying is that the entire postgresql block write must be
> converted into exactly one SCSI write command in all cases, and I don't
> know a portable way to ensure this.

No, there's no portable way. All you can do is give the admin who
is able to set things up safely the ability to turn of the now-unneeded
(and expensive) safety-related stuff that postgres does.

> I agree with this. My point was only that you need to know what
> guarantees your operating system/hardware combination provides on a
> case-by-case basis, and there is no standard way for a program to
> discover this. Most system administrators are not going to know this
> either, unless databases are their main responsibility.

Certainly this is true of pretty much every database system out there.

cjs
-- 
Curt Sampson  <cjs@cynic.net>   +81 90 7737 2974   http://www.netbsd.org
    Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light.  --XTC


From cjs@cynic.net Tue Jun 25 01:09:02 2002
Return-path: <cjs@cynic.net>
Received: from academic.cynic.net (academic.cynic.net [63.144.177.3])
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g5P591F07292
	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 01:09:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from angelic-academic.cvpn.cynic.net (angelic-academic.cvpn.cynic.net [198.73.220.224])
	by academic.cynic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 517BEF820; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 05:09:02 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 14:08:59 +0900 (JST)
From: Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
cc: "J. R. Nield" <jrnield@usol.com>, Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>,
   PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE 
In-Reply-To: <21376.1024953361@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.43.0206251406390.17448-100000@angelic.cynic.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: ORr

On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

> There are a lot of other things we desperately need to spend time
> on that would not amount to re-engineering large quantities of OS-level
> code.  Given that most Unixen have perfectly respectable disk management
> subsystems, we prefer to tune our code to make use of that stuff, rather
> than follow the "conventional wisdom" that databases need to bypass it.
> ...
> Oracle can afford to do that sort of thing because they have umpteen
> thousand developers available.  Postgres does not.

Well, Oracle also started out, a long long time ago, on systems without
unified buffer cache and so on, and so they *had* to write this stuff
because otherwise data would not be cached. So Oracle can also afford to
maintain it now because the code already exists.

cjs
-- 
Curt Sampson  <cjs@cynic.net>   +81 90 7737 2974   http://www.netbsd.org
    Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light.  --XTC


From pgsql-hackers-owner+M24154@postgresql.org Tue Jun 25 09:22:38 2002
Return-path: <pgsql-hackers-owner+M24154@postgresql.org>
Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g5PDMbF03932
	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 09:22:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id C12C3475E4A; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 09:22:32 -0400 (EDT)
Mailbox-Line: From pgman@candle.pha.pa.us  Tue Jun 25 09:22:32 2002
Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP
	id 65471475C7A; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 09:22:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97C8C475A7C
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 09:22:20 -0400 (EDT)
Mailbox-Line: From pgman@candle.pha.pa.us  Tue Jun 25 09:22:20 2002
Received: from candle.pha.pa.us (216-55-132-35.dsl.san-diego.abac.net [216.55.132.35])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42C0B475A64
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Tue, 25 Jun 2002 09:22:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from pgman@localhost)
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) id g5PDM5B03772;
	Tue, 25 Jun 2002 09:22:05 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Message-ID: <200206251322.g5PDM5B03772@candle.pha.pa.us>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Index Scans become Seq Scans after VACUUM ANALYSE
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.4.43.0206251406390.17448-100000@angelic.cynic.net>
To: Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2002 09:22:05 -0400 (EDT)
cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, "J. R. Nield" <jrnield@usol.com>,
   PostgreSQL Hacker <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL97 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.4 required=5.0
	tests=IN_REP_TO
	version=2.30
Status: OR

Curt Sampson wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> > There are a lot of other things we desperately need to spend time
> > on that would not amount to re-engineering large quantities of OS-level
> > code.  Given that most Unixen have perfectly respectable disk management
> > subsystems, we prefer to tune our code to make use of that stuff, rather
> > than follow the "conventional wisdom" that databases need to bypass it.
> > ...
> > Oracle can afford to do that sort of thing because they have umpteen
> > thousand developers available.  Postgres does not.
> 
> Well, Oracle also started out, a long long time ago, on systems without
> unified buffer cache and so on, and so they *had* to write this stuff
> because otherwise data would not be cached. So Oracle can also afford to
> maintain it now because the code already exists.

Well, actually, it isn't unified buffer cache that is the issue, but
rather the older SysV file system had pretty poor performance so
bypassing it was a bigger win that it is today.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 853-3000
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  830 Blythe Avenue
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster



From pgsql-hackers-owner+M31893@postgresql.org Fri Nov 15 11:25:58 2002
Return-path: <pgsql-hackers-owner+M31893@postgresql.org>
Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by candle.pha.pa.us (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id gAFHPvR10276
	for <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 12:25:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id A2D5A4774A1; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:34:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from postgresql.org (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP
	id 5E898477132; Fri, 15 Nov 2002 11:15:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (postgresql.org [64.49.215.8])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90CF1475B85
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Mon, 11 Nov 2002 15:33:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from Curtis-Vaio (unknown [63.164.0.45])
	by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C6CB1475A3F
	for <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>; Mon, 11 Nov 2002 15:33:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by Curtis-Vaio
  (ArGoSoft Mail Server Freeware, Version 1.8 (1.8.1.7)); Mon, 11 Nov 2002 16:33:42 -0400
From: "Curtis Faith" <curtis@galtcapital.com>
To: <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: [HACKERS] 500 tpsQL + WAL log implementation
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 16:33:41 -0400
Message-ID: <DMEEJMCDOJAKPPFACMPMCEBMCFAA.curtis@galtcapital.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700
Importance: Normal
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS new-20020517
Status: ORr

I have been experimenting with empirical tests of file system and device
level writes to determine the actual constraints in order to speed up the WAL
logging code.

Using a raw file partition and a time-based technique for determining the
optimal write position, I am able to get 8K writes physically written to disk
synchronously in the range of 500 to 650 writes per second using FreeBSD raw
device partitions on IDE disks (with write cache disabled).  I will be
testing it soon under linux with 10,00RPM SCSI which should be even better.
It is my belief that the mechanism used to achieve these speeds could be
incorporated into the existing WAL logging code as an abstraction that looks
to the WAL code just like the file level access currently used. The current
speeds are limited by the speed of a single disk rotation. For a 7,200 RPM
disk this is 120/second, for a 10,000 RPM disk this is 166.66/second

The mechanism works by adjusting the seek offset of the write by using
gettimeofday to determine approximately where the disk head is in its
rotation. The mechanism does not use any AIO calls.

Assuming the following:

1) Disk rotation time is 8.333ms or 8333us (7200 RPM).

2) A write at offset 1,500K completes at system time 103s 000ms 000us

3) A new write is requested at system time 103s 004ms 166us

4) A 390K per rotation alignment of the data on the disk.

5) A write must be sent at least 20K ahead of the current head position to
ensure that it is written in less than one rotation.

It can be determined from the above that a write for an offset of something
slightly more than 195K past the last write, or offset 1,695K will be ahead
of the current location of the head and will therefore complete in less than
a single rotation's time.

The disk specific metrics (rotation speed, bytes per rotation, base write
time, etc.) can be derived empirically through a tester program that would
take a few minutes to run and which could be run at log setup time.

The obvious problem with the above mechanism is that the WAL log needs to be
able to read from the log file in transaction order during recovery. This
could be provided for using an abstraction that prepends the logical order
for each block written to the disk and makes sure that the log blocks contain
either a valid logical order number or some other marker indicating that the
block is not being used.

A bitmap of blocks that have already been used would be kept in memory for
quickly determining the next set of possible unused blocks but this bitmap
would not need to be written to disk except during normal shutdown since in
the even of a failure the bitmaps would be reconstructed by reading all the
blocks from the disk.

Checkpointing and something akin to log rotation could be handled using this
mechanism as well.

So, MY REAL QUESTION is whether or not this is the sort of speed improvement
that warrants the work of writing the required abstraction layer and making
this very robust. The WAL code should remain essentially unchanged, with
perhaps new calls for the five or six routines used to access the log files,
and handle the equivalent of log rotation for raw device access. These new
calls would either use the current file based implementation or the new
logging mechanism depending on the configuration.

I anticipate that the extra work required for a PostgreSQL administrator to
use the proposed logging mechanism would be to:

1) Create a raw device partition of the appropriate size
2) Run the metrics tester for that device partition
3) Set the appropriate configuration parameters to indicate raw WAL logging

I anticipate that the additional space requirements for this system would be
on the order of 10% to 15% beyond the current file-based implementation's
requirements.

So, is this worth doing? Would a robust implementation likely be accepted for
7.4 assuming it can demonstrate speed improvements in the range of 500tps?

- Curtis

















---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org

