On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Jignesh Shah <jkshah@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In the double write implementation, every checkpoint write is double
>> writed,
>
> Unless I'm quite thoroughly confused, which is possible, the double
> write will need to happen the first time a buffer is written following
> each checkpoint. Which might mean the next checkpoint, but it could
> also be sooner if the background writer kicks in, or in the worst case
> a buffer has to do its own write.
>
Logically the double write happens for every checkpoint write and it
gets fsynced.. Implementation wise you can do a chunk of those pages
like we do in sets of pages and sync them once and yes it still
performs better than full_page_write. As long as you compare with
full_page_write=on, the scheme is always much better. If you compare
it with performance of full_page_write=off it is slightly less but
then you lose the the reliability. So for performance testers like me
who always turn off full_page_write anyway during my benchmark run
will not see any impact. However for folks in production who are
rightly scared to turn off full_page_write will have an ability to
increase performance without being scared on failed writes.
> Furthermore, we can't *actually* write any pages until they are
> written *and fsync'd* to the double-write buffer. So the penalty for
> the background writer failing to do the right thing is going to go up
> enormously. Think about VACUUM or COPY IN, using a ring buffer and
> kicking out its own pages. Every time it evicts a page, it is going
> to have to doublewrite the buffer, fsync it, and then write it for
> real. That is going to make PostgreSQL 6.5 look like a speed demon.
Like I said implementation detail wise it depends on how many such
pages do you sync simultaneously and the real tests prove that it is
actually much faster than one expects.
> The background writer or checkpointer can conceivably dump a bunch of
> pages into the doublewrite area and then fsync the whole thing in
> bulk, but a backend that needs to evict a page only wants one page, so
> it's pretty much screwed.
>
Generally what point you pay the penalty is a trade off.. I would
argue that you are making me pay for the full page write for my first
transaction commit that changes the page which I can never avoid and
the result is I get a transaction response time that is unacceptable
since the deviation of a similar transaction which modifies the page
already made dirty is lot less. However I can avoid page evictions if
I select a bigger bufferpool (not necessarily that I want to do that
but I have a choice without losing reliability).
Regards,
Jignesh
> --
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
