Koichi Suzuki <suzuki.koichi@oss.ntt.co.jp> writes:
> My proposal is to remove unnecessary full page writes (they are needed
> in crash recovery from inconsistent or partial writes) when we copy WAL
> to archive log and rebuilt them as a dummy when we restore from archive
> log.
> ...
> Benchmark: DBT-2
> Database size: 120WH (12.3GB)
> Total WAL size: 4.2GB (after 60min. run)
> Elapsed time:
> cp: 120.6sec
> gzip: 590.0sec
> pg_compresslog: 79.4sec
> Resultant archive log size:
> cp: 4.2GB
> gzip: 2.2GB
> pg_compresslog: 0.3GB
> Resource consumption:
> cp: user: 0.5sec system: 15.8sec idle: 16.9sec I/O wait: 87.7sec
> gzip: user: 286.2sec system: 8.6sec idle: 260.5sec I/O wait: 36.0sec
> pg_compresslog:
> user: 7.9sec system: 5.5sec idle: 37.8sec I/O wait: 28.4sec
What checkpoint settings were used to make this comparison? I'm
wondering whether much of the same benefit can't be bought at zero cost
by increasing the checkpoint interval, because that translates directly
to a reduction in the number of full-page images inserted into WAL.
Also, how much was the database run itself slowed down by the increased
volume of WAL (due to duplicated information)? It seems rather
pointless to me to measure only the archiving effort without any
consideration for the impact on the database server proper.
regards, tom lane
PS: there's something fishy about the gzip numbers ... why all the idle
time?