Increasing work_mem and shared_buffers on Postgres 9.2 significantly slows down queries - Mailing list pgsql-performance
From | Petr Praus |
---|---|
Subject | Increasing work_mem and shared_buffers on Postgres 9.2 significantly slows down queries |
Date | |
Msg-id | CACezXZ_w7HbqSxZ=5SJH=kxb4nBDNbpDejttSaU6EC1AeO4PYg@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
Responses |
Re: Increasing work_mem and shared_buffers on Postgres 9.2
significantly slows down queries
Re: Increasing work_mem and shared_buffers on Postgres 9.2 significantly slows down queries Re: Increasing work_mem and shared_buffers on Postgres 9.2 significantly slows down queries |
List | pgsql-performance |
Hello,
I have a PostgreSQL 9.2 instance running on RHEL 6.3, 8-core machine with 16GB of RAM. The server is dedicated to this database, the disks are local RAID10. Given that the default postgresql.conf is quite conservative regarding memory settings, I thought it might be a good idea to allow Postgres to use more memory. To my surprise, following advice in the performance tuning guide on Postgres wiki[2] significantly slowed down practically every query I run but it's more noticeable on the more complex queries.
I also tried running pgtune[1] which gave the following recommendation with more parameters tuned, but that didn't change anything. It suggests shared_buffers of 1/4 of RAM size which seems to in line with advice elsewhere (and on PG wiki in particular).
default_statistics_target = 50
maintenance_work_mem = 960MB
constraint_exclusion = on
checkpoint_completion_target = 0.9
effective_cache_size = 11GB
work_mem = 96MB
wal_buffers = 8MB
checkpoint_segments = 16
shared_buffers = 3840MB
max_connections = 80
I tried reindexing the whole database after changing the settings (using REINDEX DATABASE), but that didn't help either. I played around with shared_buffers and work_mem. Gradually changing them from the very conservative default values (128k / 1MB) also gradually decreased performance.
I ran EXPLAIN (ANALYZE,BUFFERS) on a few queries and the culprit seems to be that Hash Join is significantly slower. It's not clear to me why.
To give some specific example, I have the following query. It runs in ~2100ms on the default configuration and ~3300ms on the configuration with increased buffer sizes:
select count(*) from contest c
left outer join contestparticipant cp on c.id=cp.contestId
left outer join teammember tm on tm.contestparticipantid=cp.id
left outer join staffmember sm on cp.id=sm.contestparticipantid
left outer join person p on p.id=cp.personid
left outer join personinfo pi on pi.id=cp.personinfoid
where pi.lastname like '%b%' or pi.firstname like '%a%';
EXPLAIN (ANALYZE,BUFFERS) for the query above:
- Default buffers: http://explain.depesz.com/s/xaHJ
- Bigger buffers: http://explain.depesz.com/s/Plk
The tables don't have anything special in them
The question is why am I observing decreased performance when I increase buffer sizes? The machine is definitely not running out of memory. Allocation if shared memory in OS is (`shmmax` and `shmall`) is set to very large values, that should not be a problem. I'm not getting any errors in the Postgres log either. I'm running autovacuum in the default configuration but I don't expect that has anything to do with it. All queries were run on the same machine few seconds apart, just with changed configuration (and restarted PG).
I also found a blog post [3] which experiments with various work_mem values that run into similar behavior I'm experiencing but it doesn't really explain it.
Thanks,
Petr Praus
PS:
I also posted the question here: http://dba.stackexchange.com/questions/27893/increasing-work-mem-and-shared-buffers-on-postgres-9-2-significantly-slows-down but a few people suggested
pgsql-performance by date: