On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 12:41 PM Masahiro Ikeda
<ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
>
> On 2020-10-20 12:46, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 8:01 AM Masahiro Ikeda
> >> 1. Basic statistics of WAL activity
> >>
> >> - wal_records: Total number of WAL records generated
> >> - wal_fpi: Total number of WAL full page images generated
> >> - wal_bytes: Total amount of WAL bytes generated
> >>
> >> To understand DB's performance, first, we will check the performance
> >> trends for the entire database instance.
> >> For example, if the number of wal_fpi becomes higher, users may tune
> >> "wal_compression", "checkpoint_timeout" and so on.
> >>
> >> Although users can check the above statistics via EXPLAIN,
> >> auto_explain,
> >> autovacuum and pg_stat_statements now,
> >> if users want to see the performance trends for the entire database,
> >> they must recalculate the statistics.
> >>
> >
> > Here, do you mean to say 'entire cluster' instead of 'entire database'
> > because it seems these stats are getting collected for the entire
> > cluster?
>
> Thanks for your comments.
> Yes, I wanted to say 'entire cluster'.
>
> >> I think it is useful to add the sum of the basic statistics.
> >>
> >
> > There is an argument that it is better to view these stats at the
> > statement-level so that one can know which statements are causing most
> > WAL and then try to rate-limit them if required in the application and
> > anyway they can get the aggregate of all the WAL if they want. We have
> > added these stats in PG-13, so do we have any evidence that the
> > already added stats don't provide enough information? I understand
> > that you are trying to display the accumulated stats here which if
> > required users/DBA need to compute with the currently provided stats.
> > OTOH, sometimes adding more ways to do some things causes difficulty
> > for users to understand and learn.
>
> I agreed that the statement-level stat is important and I understood
> that we can
> know the aggregated WAL stats of pg_stat_statement view and autovacuum's
> log.
> But now, WAL stats generated by autovacuum can be output to logs and it
> is not
> easy to aggregate them. Since WAL writes impacts for the entire cluster,
> I thought
> it's natural to provide accumulated value.
>
I think it is other way i.e if we would have accumulated stats then it
makes sense to provide those at statement-level because one would like
to know the exact cause of more WAL activity. Say it is due to an
autovacuum or due to the particular set of statements then it would
easier for users to do something about it.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
