On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 4:03 AM Sebastian Dressler <sebastian@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi Henrique,
On 15. Jul 2020, at 03:13, Henrique Montenegro <typoon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:[...]
```
ssl = off
shared_buffers = 160GB # min 128kB
work_mem = 96GB # min 64kB
maintenance_work_mem = 12GB # min 1MB
max_stack_depth = 4MB # min 100kB
dynamic_shared_memory_type = posix # the default is the first option
synchronous_commit = off # synchronization level;
commit_delay = 100000 # range 0-100000, in microseconds
max_wal_size = 3GB
min_wal_size = 1GB
min_parallel_index_scan_size = 64kB
effective_cache_size = 96GB
log_min_messages = debug1 # values in order of decreasing detail:
log_checkpoints = on
log_error_verbosity = verbose # terse, default, or verbose messages
log_line_prefix = '%m [%p] %q%u@%d ' # special values:
log_lock_waits = on # log lock waits >= deadlock_timeout
log_timezone = 'America/New_York'
log_executor_stats = on
datestyle = 'iso, mdy'
```
[...]
Limit | Time (seconds)
---------|------------------
10 | 0.6
100 | 0.6
1000 | 1.3
10000 | 116.9
100000 | 134.8
1000000 | 193.2
Notice the jump in time execution from a 1k limit to a 10k limit. Amount of
data raised 10x and execution time raised 100x.
It seems to me that inserting the data in this case is slow because the time
it takes to identify the duplicate records (which I assume would be done in a
fashion similiar to the queries above) is taking a long time.
I have attached the `explain analyze` output for the 1k and 10k queries to
this email (they are 4k+ lines each, didn't want to make this messager bigger
than it already is).
* exp1k.txt
* exp10k.txt
[...]
I quickly glanced at the exp10k plan and there are some things I noticed (sorry for not going over all the mail, have to re-read it again):
- There are a lot of partitions now, you maybe want consider reducing the amount. To me it seems that you overload the system. Scan times are low but the overhead to start a scan is likely quite high.- work_mem = 96GB seems very high to me, I guess you'd be better with e.g. 4GB as a start but many more parallel workers. For instance, depending on your machine, try adjusting the max_worker_processes, max_parallel_workers and max_parallel_workers_per_gather. Values depend a bit on your system, make sure, that max_parallel_workers_per_gather are much lower than max_parallel_workers and that must be lower than max_worker_processes. You can try large values, for instance 128, 120, 12.- You may want to test with min_parallel_table_scan_size = 0- Did you enable partition pruning, partitionwise join and aggregate?
Thanks,Sebastian
--
Sebastian Dressler, Solution Architect
+49 30 994 0496 72 | sebastian@xxxxxxxxxxx
Swarm64 AS
Parkveien 41 B | 0258 Oslo | Norway
Registered at Brønnøysundregistrene in Norway under Org.-Number 911 662 787
CEO/Geschäftsführer (Daglig Leder): Thomas Richter; Chairman/Vorsitzender (Styrets Leder): Dr. Sverre Munck
Swarm64 AS Zweigstelle Hive
Ullsteinstr. 120 | 12109 Berlin | Germany
Registered at Amtsgericht Charlottenburg - HRB 154382 B
Hi Sebastian,
That is a good idea about the parallel workers. I have tried to update them and will post the results as soon as I have them.
Regarding the partition pruning it is set to the default (which is on). partitionwise_join and partitionwise_aggregate are both set to off. I will turn them on as well and see how it goes.
Thanks for the suggestions! I will keep the list updated.
Henrique
