Re: really stupid question about checkpointing - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Greg Smith
Subject Re: really stupid question about checkpointing
Date
Msg-id alpine.GSO.2.01.0907282201070.25458@westnet.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to really stupid question about checkpointing  (Doug Hunley <doug.hunley@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-performance
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Doug Hunley wrote:

> Jul 26 04:45:48  checkpoint complete: wrote 219 buffers (0.1%); 0
> transaction log file(s) added, 0 removed, 0 recycled; write=43.634 s,

Each buffer is 8KB here.  So this one, the largest of the checkpoints you
showed in your sample, is writing out 1.71MB spread out over 43 seconds.
It hardly seems worthwhile to further spread out I/O when the total amount
of it is so small.

> checkpoint_segments             | 128

This is on the high side, and given the low buffer write statistics you're
seeing I'd bet that it's checkpoint_timeout you'd need to increase in
order spread out checkpoints further.  You might get a useful improvement
increasing checkpoint_timeout a bit, checkpoint_segments you already have
set to an extremely high value--one that is normally only justified if you
have a lot more write activity than your logs suggest.

If I were you, I'd cut checkpoint_segments in half, double
checkpoint_timeout, and check back again on the logs in a day.  That
should reduce the amount of disk space wasted by the pg_log overhead while
netting you better performance, because right now you're probably only
having timed checkpoints rather than segment based ones.  If you look at
pg_stat_bgwriter you'll probably find that checkpoints_req is close to 0
while checkpoints_timed is not.

--
* Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Jon Nelson
Date:
Subject: Re: hyperthreaded cpu still an issue in 8.4?
Next
From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner
Date:
Subject: Re: hyperthreaded cpu still an issue in 8.4?