Re: Add statistics to pg_stat_wal view for wal related parameter tuning - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On 2020/11/19 16:31, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
> On 2020-11-17 11:46, Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On 2020/11/16 16:35, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
>>> On 2020-11-12 14:58, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>>> On 2020/11/06 10:25, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
>>>>> On 2020-10-30 11:50, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>>>>> On 2020/10/29 17:03, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for your comments and advice. I updated the patch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2020-10-21 18:03, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
>>>>>>>> At Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:11:29 +0900, Masahiro Ikeda
>>>>>>>> <ikedamsh@oss.nttdata.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> On 2020-10-20 12:46, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>>>>>>>> > I see that we also need to add extra code to capture these stats (some
>>>>>>>>> > of which is in performance-critical path especially in
>>>>>>>>> > XLogInsertRecord) which again makes me a bit uncomfortable. It might
>>>>>>>>> > be that it is all fine as it is very important to collect these stats
>>>>>>>>> > at cluster-level in spite that the same information can be gathered at
>>>>>>>>> > statement-level to help customers but I don't see a very strong case
>>>>>>>>> > for that in your proposal.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We should avoid that duplication as possible even if the both number
>>>>>>>> are important.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also about performance, I thought there are few impacts because it
>>>>>>>>> increments stats in memory. If I can implement to reuse pgWalUsage's
>>>>>>>>> value which already collects these stats, there is no impact in
>>>>>>>>> XLogInsertRecord.
>>>>>>>>> For example, how about pg_stat_wal() calculates the accumulated
>>>>>>>>> value of wal_records, wal_fpi, and wal_bytes to use pgWalUsage's
>>>>>>>>> value?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't think that works, but it would work that pgstat_send_wal()
>>>>>>>> takes the difference of that values between two successive calls.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WalUsage prevWalUsage;
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> pgstat_send_wal()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>> ..
>>>>>>>>    /* fill in some values using pgWalUsage */
>>>>>>>>    WalStats.m_wal_bytes   = pgWalUsage.wal_bytes   - prevWalUsage.wal_bytes;
>>>>>>>>    WalStats.m_wal_records = pgWalUsage.wal_records - prevWalUsage.wal_records;
>>>>>>>>    WalStats.m_wal_wal_fpi = pgWalUsage.wal_fpi     - prevWalUsage.wal_fpi;
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>    pgstat_send(&WalStats, sizeof(WalStats));
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>    /* remember the current numbers */
>>>>>>>>    prevWalUsage = pgWalUsage;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for Horiguchi-san's advice, I changed to reuse pgWalUsage
>>>>>>> which is already defined and eliminates the extra overhead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +    /* fill in some values using pgWalUsage */
>>>>>> +    WalStats.m_wal_bytes = pgWalUsage.wal_bytes - prevWalUsage.wal_bytes;
>>>>>> +    WalStats.m_wal_records = pgWalUsage.wal_records - prevWalUsage.wal_records;
>>>>>> +    WalStats.m_wal_fpi = pgWalUsage.wal_fpi - prevWalUsage.wal_fpi;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's better to use WalUsageAccumDiff() here?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, thanks. I fixed it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> prevWalUsage needs to be initialized with pgWalUsage?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +                if (AmWalWriterProcess()){
>>>>>> +                    WalStats.m_wal_write_walwriter++;
>>>>>> +                }
>>>>>> +                else
>>>>>> +                {
>>>>>> +                    WalStats.m_wal_write_backend++;
>>>>>> +                }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that it's better not to separate m_wal_write_xxx into two for
>>>>>> walwriter and other processes. Instead, we can use one m_wal_write_xxx
>>>>>> counter and make pgstat_send_wal() send also the process type to
>>>>>> the stats collector. Then the stats collector can accumulate the counters
>>>>>> per process type if necessary. If we adopt this approach, we can easily
>>>>>> extend pg_stat_wal so that any fields can be reported per process type.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll remove the above source code because these counters are not useful.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2020-10-30 12:00, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>>>>> On 2020/10/20 11:31, Masahiro Ikeda wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think we need to add some statistics to pg_stat_wal view.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Although there are some parameter related WAL,
>>>>>>> there are few statistics for tuning them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it's better to provide the following statistics.
>>>>>>> Please let me know your comments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ```
>>>>>>> postgres=# SELECT * from pg_stat_wal;
>>>>>>> -[ RECORD 1 ]-------+------------------------------
>>>>>>> wal_records         | 2000224
>>>>>>> wal_fpi             | 47
>>>>>>> wal_bytes           | 248216337
>>>>>>> wal_buffers_full    | 20954
>>>>>>> wal_init_file       | 8
>>>>>>> wal_write_backend   | 20960
>>>>>>> wal_write_walwriter | 46
>>>>>>> wal_write_time      | 51
>>>>>>> wal_sync_backend    | 7
>>>>>>> wal_sync_walwriter  | 8
>>>>>>> wal_sync_time       | 0
>>>>>>> stats_reset         | 2020-10-20 11:04:51.307771+09
>>>>>>> ```
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it is useful to add the sum of the basic statistics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2.  WAL segment file creation
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - wal_init_file: Total number of WAL segment files created.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To create a new WAL file may have an impact on the performance of
>>>>>>> a write-heavy workload generating lots of WAL. If this number is reported high,
>>>>>>> to reduce the number of this initialization, we can tune WAL-related parameters
>>>>>>> so that more "recycled" WAL files can be held.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 3. Number of when WAL is flushed
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - wal_write_backend : Total number of WAL data written to the disk by backends
>>>>>>> - wal_write_walwriter : Total number of WAL data written to the disk by walwriter
>>>>>>> - wal_sync_backend : Total number of WAL data synced to the disk by backends
>>>>>>> - wal_sync_walwriter : Total number of WAL data synced to the disk by walwrite
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it's useful for tuning "synchronous_commit" and "commit_delay" for query executions.
>>>>>>> If the number of WAL is flushed is high, users can know "synchronous_commit" is useful for the workload.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just wonder how useful these counters are. Even without these counters,
>>>>>> we already know synchronous_commit=off is likely to cause the better
>>>>>> performance (but has the risk of data loss). So ISTM that these counters are
>>>>>> not so useful when tuning synchronous_commit.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, my understanding was wrong.
>>>>> I agreed that your comments.
>>>>>
>>>>> I merged the statistics of *_backend and *_walwriter.
>>>>> I think the sum of them is useful to calculate the average per write/sync time.
>>>>> For example, per write time is equals wal_write_time / wal_write.
>>>>
>>>> Understood.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for updating the patch!
>>>
>>> Thanks for your comments.
>>>
>>>> patching file src/include/catalog/pg_proc.dat
>>>> Hunk #1 FAILED at 5491.
>>>> 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file
>>>> src/include/catalog/pg_proc.dat.rej
>>>>
>>>> I got this failure when applying the patch. Could you update the patch?
>>>
>>> Thanks, I updated the patch.
>>>
>>>> -       Number of times WAL data was written to the disk because WAL
>>>> buffers got full
>>>> +       Total number of times WAL data written to the disk because WAL
>>>> buffers got full
>>>>
>>>> Isn't "was" necessary between "data" and "written"?
>>>
>>> Yes, I fixed it.
>>>
>>>> +      <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition">
>>>> +       <structfield>wal_bytes</structfield> <type>bigint</type>
>>>>
>>>> Shouldn't the type of wal_bytes be numeric because the total number of
>>>> WAL bytes can exceed the range of bigint? I think that the type of
>>>> pg_stat_statements.wal_bytes is also numeric for the same reason.
>>>
>>> Thanks, I fixed it.
>>>
>>> Since I cast the type of wal_bytes from PgStat_Counter to uint64,
>>> I changed the type of PgStat_MsgWal and PgStat_WalStats too.
>>>
>>>> +      <entry role="catalog_table_entry"><para role="column_definition">
>>>> +       <structfield>wal_write_time</structfield> <type>bigint</type>
>>>>
>>>> Shouldn't the type of wal_xxx_time be double precision,
>>>> like pg_stat_database.blk_write_time?
>>>
>>> Thanks, I changed it.
>>>
>>>> Even when fsync is set to off or wal_sync_method is set to open_sync,
>>>> wal_sync is incremented. Isn't this behavior confusing?
>>
>> What do you think about this comment?
> 
> Sorry, I'll change to increment wal_sync and wal_sync_time only
> if a specific fsync method is called.
> 
>> I found that we discussed track-WAL-IO-timing feature at the past discussion
>> about the similar feature [1]. But the feature was droppped from the proposal
>> patch because there was the performance concern. So probably we need to
>> revisit the past discussion and benchmark the performance. Thought?
>>
>> If track-WAL-IO-timing feature may cause performance regression,
>> it might be an idea to extract wal_records, wal_fpi and wal_bytes parts
>> from the patch and commit it at first.
>>
>> [1]
>> https://postgr.es/m/CAJrrPGc6APFUGYNcPe4qcNxpL8gXKYv1KST+vwJcFtCSCEySnA@mail.gmail.com
> 
> Thanks, I'll check the thread.
> I agree to add basic statistics at first and I attached the patch.

Thanks!

+        /* Send WAL statistics */
+        pgstat_send_wal();

This is not necessary because walwriter generates no WAL data?

> 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> +       Total amount of time that has been spent in the portion of
>>>> +       WAL data was written to disk by backend and walwriter, in milliseconds
>>>> +       (if <xref linkend="guc-track-io-timing"/> is enabled, otherwise zero)
>>>>
>>>> With the patch, track_io_timing controls both IO for data files and
>>>> WAL files. But we may want to track only either of them. So it's better
>>>> to extend track_io_timing so that we can specify the tracking target
>>>> in the parameter? For example, we can make track_io_timing accept
>>>> data, wal and all. Or we should introduce new GUC for WAL, e.g.,
>>>> track_wal_io_timing? Thought?
>>>
>>> OK, I introduced the new GUC "track_wal_io_timing".
>>>
>>>> I'm afraid that "by backend and walwriter" part can make us thinkg
>>>> incorrectly that WAL writes by other processes like autovacuum
>>>> are not tracked.
>>>
>>> Sorry, I removed "by backend and walwriter".
>>
>> Thanks for updating the patch!
>>
>> +WalUsage prevWalUsage;
>>
>> ISTM that we can declare this as static variable because
>> it's used only in pgstat.c.
> 
> Thanks, I fixed it.
> 
>> +    memset(&walusage, 0, sizeof(WalUsage));
>> +    WalUsageAccumDiff(&walusage, &pgWalUsage, &prevWalUsage);
>>
>> This memset seems unnecessary.
> 
> I couldn't understand why this memset is unnecessary.
> Since WalUsageAccumDiff not only calculates the difference but also adds the value,
> I thought walusage needs to be initialized.

Yes, you're right! Sorry for noise...

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION