Обсуждение: Re: [GENERAL] WAL being written during SELECT * query

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка

Re: [GENERAL] WAL being written during SELECT * query

От
Tom DalPozzo
Дата:


2017-04-04 19:18 GMT+02:00 Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>:
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Tom DalPozzo <t.dalpozzo@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a very big table (10GB).
> I noticed that many WAL segments are being written when elaborating read
> only transactions like this:
> select * from dati25600000000 where id >43000000 limit 1000000;
> I don't understand why are there WAL writings during read only transactions.
> Regards
> Pupillo



I think this is the db setting hint bits, but I'm no expert in that area.

Hi,
I'm not able to reproduce the problem in a deterministic way. Sometimes it does sometimes not.
Anyway, examining with pg_xlogdum those WAL, I get many many records like these:

rmgr: XLOG        len (rec/tot):      0/  8173, tx:          0, lsn: C/E502AF28, prev C/E5028F20, desc: FPI_FOR_HINT , blkref #0: rel 1663/16384/18846 blk 1454439 FPW
rmgr: XLOG        len (rec/tot):      0/  8173, tx:          0, lsn: C/E502CF30, prev C/E502AF28, desc: FPI_FOR_HINT , blkref #0: rel 1663/16384/18846 blk 1454440 FPW
rmgr: XLOG        len (rec/tot):      0/  8173, tx:          0, lsn: C/E502EF38, prev C/E502CF30, desc: FPI_FOR_HINT , blkref #0: rel 1663/16384/18846 blk 1454441 FPW
rmgr: XLOG        len (rec/tot):      0/  8173, tx:          0, lsn: C/E5030F40, prev C/E502EF38, desc: FPI_FOR_HINT , blkref #0: rel 1663/16384/18846 blk 1454442 FPW
rmgr: XLOG        len (rec/tot):      0/  8173, tx:          0, lsn: C/E5032F48, prev C/E5030F40, desc: FPI_FOR_HINT , blkref #0: rel 1663/16384/18846 blk 1454443 FPW

What is the meaning of FPI_FOR_HINT?

I've replication slots and async replication, but slaves are kept off (PCs not powered).
No other queries except that one.
Even select count (*) from dati25600000000; gives the problem (sometimes)
Thanks
Pupillo



Re: [GENERAL] WAL being written during SELECT * query

От
"David G. Johnston"
Дата:
On Thu, Apr 6, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Tom DalPozzo <t.dalpozzo@gmail.com> wrote:

What is the meaning of FPI_FOR_HINT?


​Full Page Image for Hint [Bits]

Its noted as being dependent upon checksums being enabled.

I have a feel for the interactions involved here but not enough to explain them in detail.

David J.

Re: [GENERAL] WAL being written during SELECT * query

От
Tom DalPozzo
Дата:


2017-04-06 17:51 GMT+02:00 Tom DalPozzo <t.dalpozzo@gmail.com>:


2017-04-04 19:18 GMT+02:00 Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>:
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Tom DalPozzo <t.dalpozzo@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> I have a very big table (10GB).
> I noticed that many WAL segments are being written when elaborating read
> only transactions like this:
> select * from dati25600000000 where id >43000000 limit 1000000;
> I don't understand why are there WAL writings during read only transactions.
> Regards
> Pupillo



I think this is the db setting hint bits, but I'm no expert in that area.

Hi,
I'm not able to reproduce the problem in a deterministic way. Sometimes it does sometimes not.
Anyway, examining with pg_xlogdum those WAL, I get many many records like these:

rmgr: XLOG        len (rec/tot):      0/  8173, tx:          0, lsn: C/E502AF28, prev C/E5028F20, desc: FPI_FOR_HINT , blkref #0: rel 1663/16384/18846 blk 1454439 FPW
rmgr: XLOG        len (rec/tot):      0/  8173, tx:          0, lsn: C/E502CF30, prev C/E502AF28, desc: FPI_FOR_HINT , blkref #0: rel 1663/16384/18846 blk 1454440 FPW
rmgr: XLOG        len (rec/tot):      0/  8173, tx:          0, lsn: C/E502EF38, prev C/E502CF30, desc: FPI_FOR_HINT , blkref #0: rel 1663/16384/18846 blk 1454441 FPW
rmgr: XLOG        len (rec/tot):      0/  8173, tx:          0, lsn: C/E5030F40, prev C/E502EF38, desc: FPI_FOR_HINT , blkref #0: rel 1663/16384/18846 blk 1454442 FPW
rmgr: XLOG        len (rec/tot):      0/  8173, tx:          0, lsn: C/E5032F48, prev C/E5030F40, desc: FPI_FOR_HINT , blkref #0: rel 1663/16384/18846 blk 1454443 FPW

What is the meaning of FPI_FOR_HINT?

I've replication slots and async replication, but slaves are kept off (PCs not powered).
No other queries except that one.
Even select count (*) from dati25600000000; gives the problem (sometimes)
Thanks
Pupillo




Hi, I can reproduce the problem.
1) Insert many rows (>50 milions) in the table.
2) perform a select like select count(*) in order to force the system to read all the rows.
The FIRST time you do step 2) it writes all those FP_FOR_HINTS recs.
Next times or if the table is quite small, it doesn't do the problem.
If, instead of select count (*) you make a select which involved only a group of tuples, it write only the recs regarding those tuples. 


Regards
Pupillo


 

Re: [GENERAL] WAL being written during SELECT * query

От
Bill Moran
Дата:
> >> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Tom DalPozzo <t.dalpozzo@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> > I have a very big table (10GB).
> >> > I noticed that many WAL segments are being written when elaborating read
> >> > only transactions like this:
> >> > select * from dati25600000000 where id >43000000 limit 1000000;
> >> > I don't understand why are there WAL writings during read only
> >> transactions.

These are hint bits. The mechanism and behavior are known and documented:
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Hint_Bits

--
Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com>


Re: [GENERAL] WAL being written during SELECT * query

От
Tom DalPozzo
Дата:

2017-04-10 16:49 GMT+02:00 Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com>:

> >> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Tom DalPozzo <t.dalpozzo@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> > I have a very big table (10GB).
> >> > I noticed that many WAL segments are being written when elaborating read
> >> > only transactions like this:
> >> > select * from dati25600000000 where id >43000000 limit 1000000;
> >> > I don't understand why are there WAL writings during read only
> >> transactions.

These are hint bits. The mechanism and behavior are known and documented:
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Hint_Bits

--
Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com>

Hi, OK! Thank you very much
Pupillo