Keep in mind that I am a rookie in the world of sql/databases.
I am inserting/updating thousands of objects every second. Those objects are actively being queried for at multiple second intervals.
What are some basic things I should do to performance tune my (postgres) database?
It's a broad topic, so here's lots of stuff for you to read up on.
EXPLAIN and EXPLAIN ANALYZE is extremely useful for understanding what's going on in your db-engine
Make sure relevant columns are indexed
Make sure irrelevant columns are not indexed (insert/update-performance can go down the drain if too many indexes must be updated)
Make sure your postgres.conf is tuned properly
Know what work_mem is, and how it affects your queries (mostly useful for larger queries)
Make sure your database is properly normalized
VACUUM for clearing out old data
ANALYZE for updating statistics (statistics target for amount of statistics)
Persistent connections (you could use a connection manager like pgpool or pgbouncer)
Understand how queries are constructed (joins, sub-selects, cursors)
Caching of data (i.e. memcached) is an option
And when you've exhausted those options: add more memory, faster disk-subsystem etc. Hardware matters, especially on larger datasets.
And of course, read all the other threads on postgres/databases. :)
First and foremost, read the official manual's Performance Tips.
Running EXPLAIN on all your queries and understanding its output will let you know if your queries are as fast as they could be, and if you should be adding indexes.
Once you've done that, I'd suggest reading over the Server Configuration part of the manual. There are many options which can be fine-tuned to further enhance performance. Make sure to understand the options you're setting though, since they could just as easily hinder performance if they're set incorrectly.
Remember that every time you change a query or an option, test and benchmark so that you know the effects of each change.
Actually there are some simple rules which will get you in most cases enough performance:
Indices are the first part. Primary keys are automatically indexed. I recommend to put indices on all foreign keys. Further put indices on all columns which are frequently queried, if there are heavily used queries on a table where more than one column is queried, put an index on those columns together.
Memory settings in your postgresql installation. Set following parameters higher:
.
shared_buffers, work_mem, maintenance_work_mem, temp_buffers
If it is a dedicated database machine you can easily set the first 3 of these to half the ram (just be carefull under linux with shared buffers, maybe you have to adjust the shmmax parameter), in any other cases it depends on how much ram you would like to give to postgresql.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.3/interactive/runtime-config-resource.html
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Performance_Optimization
The absolute minimum I'll recommend is the EXPLAIN ANALYZE command. It will show a breakdown of subqueries, joins, et al., all the time showing the actual amount of time consumed in the operation. It will also alert you to sequential scans and other nasty trouble.
It is the best way to start.
Put fsync = off in your posgresql.conf, if you trust your filesystem, otherwise each postgresql operation will be imediately written to the disk (with fsync system call).
We have this option turned off on many production servers since quite 10 years, and we never had data corruptions.
Related
Given a live table in SQL with some non-trivial number of columns/entries, with one or more applications actively querying it, what would be the effect of introducing a new index on some column of this table? What takes priority? Serving the query, or constructing the index? Put another way, would setting up the index be experienced by the querying applications as a delay in getting their responses?
It is possible to use the database while indexing is taking place, but it's effects on performance is nearly impossible for us to say. A great deal about the optimizer is magic to anyone who hasn't worked on it themselves, and the answer could change greatly depending on which RDMS you're using. On top of that, your own hardware will play a huge part in the answer.
That being said, if you're primarily reading from the table, there's a good chance you won't see a major performance hit, if your system has the IO/CPU capabilities of handling both tasks at the same time. Inserting however, will be slowed down considerably.
Whether this impact is problematic will depend on your current system load, size of your tables, and what exactly it is you're indexing. Generally speaking, if you have a decent server, a lowish load, and a table with only a few million rows or less, I wouldn't expect to see a performance hit at all.
I am switching to PostgreSQL from SQLite for a typical Rails application.
The problem is that running specs became slow with PG.
On SQLite it took ~34 seconds, on PG it's ~76 seconds which is more than 2x slower.
So now I want to apply some techniques to bring the performance of the specs on par with SQLite with no code modifications (ideally just by setting the connection options, which is probably not possible).
Couple of obvious things from top of my head are:
RAM Disk (good setup with RSpec on OSX would be good to see)
Unlogged tables (can it be applied on the whole database so I don't have change all the scripts?)
As you may have understood I don't care about reliability and the rest (the DB is just a throwaway thingy here).
I need to get the most out of the PG and make it as fast as it can possibly be.
Best answer would ideally describe the tricks for doing just that, setup and the drawbacks of those tricks.
UPDATE: fsync = off + full_page_writes = off only decreased time to ~65 seconds (~-16 secs). Good start, but far from the target of 34.
UPDATE 2: I tried to use RAM disk but the performance gain was within an error margin. So doesn't seem to be worth it.
UPDATE 3:*
I found the biggest bottleneck and now my specs run as fast as the SQLite ones.
The issue was the database cleanup that did the truncation. Apparently SQLite is way too fast there.
To "fix" it I open a transaction before each test and roll it back at the end.
Some numbers for ~700 tests.
Truncation: SQLite - 34s, PG - 76s.
Transaction: SQLite - 17s, PG - 18s.
2x speed increase for SQLite.
4x speed increase for PG.
First, always use the latest version of PostgreSQL. Performance improvements are always coming, so you're probably wasting your time if you're tuning an old version. For example, PostgreSQL 9.2 significantly improves the speed of TRUNCATE and of course adds index-only scans. Even minor releases should always be followed; see the version policy.
Don'ts
Do NOT put a tablespace on a RAMdisk or other non-durable storage.
If you lose a tablespace the whole database may be damaged and hard to use without significant work. There's very little advantage to this compared to just using UNLOGGED tables and having lots of RAM for cache anyway.
If you truly want a ramdisk based system, initdb a whole new cluster on the ramdisk by initdbing a new PostgreSQL instance on the ramdisk, so you have a completely disposable PostgreSQL instance.
PostgreSQL server configuration
When testing, you can configure your server for non-durable but faster operation.
This is one of the only acceptable uses for the fsync=off setting in PostgreSQL. This setting pretty much tells PostgreSQL not to bother with ordered writes or any of that other nasty data-integrity-protection and crash-safety stuff, giving it permission to totally trash your data if you lose power or have an OS crash.
Needless to say, you should never enable fsync=off in production unless you're using Pg as a temporary database for data you can re-generate from elsewhere. If and only if you're doing to turn fsync off can also turn full_page_writes off, as it no longer does any good then. Beware that fsync=off and full_page_writes apply at the cluster level, so they affect all databases in your PostgreSQL instance.
For production use you can possibly use synchronous_commit=off and set a commit_delay, as you'll get many of the same benefits as fsync=off without the giant data corruption risk. You do have a small window of loss of recent data if you enable async commit - but that's it.
If you have the option of slightly altering the DDL, you can also use UNLOGGED tables in Pg 9.1+ to completely avoid WAL logging and gain a real speed boost at the cost of the tables getting erased if the server crashes. There is no configuration option to make all tables unlogged, it must be set during CREATE TABLE. In addition to being good for testing this is handy if you have tables full of generated or unimportant data in a database that otherwise contains stuff you need to be safe.
Check your logs and see if you're getting warnings about too many checkpoints. If you are, you should increase your checkpoint_segments. You may also want to tune your checkpoint_completion_target to smooth writes out.
Tune shared_buffers to fit your workload. This is OS-dependent, depends on what else is going on with your machine, and requires some trial and error. The defaults are extremely conservative. You may need to increase the OS's maximum shared memory limit if you increase shared_buffers on PostgreSQL 9.2 and below; 9.3 and above changed how they use shared memory to avoid that.
If you're using a just a couple of connections that do lots of work, increase work_mem to give them more RAM to play with for sorts etc. Beware that too high a work_mem setting can cause out-of-memory problems because it's per-sort not per-connection so one query can have many nested sorts. You only really have to increase work_mem if you can see sorts spilling to disk in EXPLAIN or logged with the log_temp_files setting (recommended), but a higher value may also let Pg pick smarter plans.
As said by another poster here it's wise to put the xlog and the main tables/indexes on separate HDDs if possible. Separate partitions is pretty pointless, you really want separate drives. This separation has much less benefit if you're running with fsync=off and almost none if you're using UNLOGGED tables.
Finally, tune your queries. Make sure that your random_page_cost and seq_page_cost reflect your system's performance, ensure your effective_cache_size is correct, etc. Use EXPLAIN (BUFFERS, ANALYZE) to examine individual query plans, and turn the auto_explain module on to report all slow queries. You can often improve query performance dramatically just by creating an appropriate index or tweaking the cost parameters.
AFAIK there's no way to set an entire database or cluster as UNLOGGED. It'd be interesting to be able to do so. Consider asking on the PostgreSQL mailing list.
Host OS tuning
There's some tuning you can do at the operating system level, too. The main thing you might want to do is convince the operating system not to flush writes to disk aggressively, since you really don't care when/if they make it to disk.
In Linux you can control this with the virtual memory subsystem's dirty_* settings, like dirty_writeback_centisecs.
The only issue with tuning writeback settings to be too slack is that a flush by some other program may cause all PostgreSQL's accumulated buffers to be flushed too, causing big stalls while everything blocks on writes. You may be able to alleviate this by running PostgreSQL on a different file system, but some flushes may be device-level or whole-host-level not filesystem-level, so you can't rely on that.
This tuning really requires playing around with the settings to see what works best for your workload.
On newer kernels, you may wish to ensure that vm.zone_reclaim_mode is set to zero, as it can cause severe performance issues with NUMA systems (most systems these days) due to interactions with how PostgreSQL manages shared_buffers.
Query and workload tuning
These are things that DO require code changes; they may not suit you. Some are things you might be able to apply.
If you're not batching work into larger transactions, start. Lots of small transactions are expensive, so you should batch stuff whenever it's possible and practical to do so. If you're using async commit this is less important, but still highly recommended.
Whenever possible use temporary tables. They don't generate WAL traffic, so they're lots faster for inserts and updates. Sometimes it's worth slurping a bunch of data into a temp table, manipulating it however you need to, then doing an INSERT INTO ... SELECT ... to copy it to the final table. Note that temporary tables are per-session; if your session ends or you lose your connection then the temp table goes away, and no other connection can see the contents of a session's temp table(s).
If you're using PostgreSQL 9.1 or newer you can use UNLOGGED tables for data you can afford to lose, like session state. These are visible across different sessions and preserved between connections. They get truncated if the server shuts down uncleanly so they can't be used for anything you can't re-create, but they're great for caches, materialized views, state tables, etc.
In general, don't DELETE FROM blah;. Use TRUNCATE TABLE blah; instead; it's a lot quicker when you're dumping all rows in a table. Truncate many tables in one TRUNCATE call if you can. There's a caveat if you're doing lots of TRUNCATES of small tables over and over again, though; see: Postgresql Truncation speed
If you don't have indexes on foreign keys, DELETEs involving the primary keys referenced by those foreign keys will be horribly slow. Make sure to create such indexes if you ever expect to DELETE from the referenced table(s). Indexes are not required for TRUNCATE.
Don't create indexes you don't need. Each index has a maintenance cost. Try to use a minimal set of indexes and let bitmap index scans combine them rather than maintaining too many huge, expensive multi-column indexes. Where indexes are required, try to populate the table first, then create indexes at the end.
Hardware
Having enough RAM to hold the entire database is a huge win if you can manage it.
If you don't have enough RAM, the faster storage you can get the better. Even a cheap SSD makes a massive difference over spinning rust. Don't trust cheap SSDs for production though, they're often not crashsafe and might eat your data.
Learning
Greg Smith's book, PostgreSQL 9.0 High Performance remains relevant despite referring to a somewhat older version. It should be a useful reference.
Join the PostgreSQL general mailing list and follow it.
Reading:
Tuning your PostgreSQL server - PostgreSQL wiki
Number of database connections - PostgreSQL wiki
Use different disk layout:
different disk for $PGDATA
different disk for $PGDATA/pg_xlog
different disk for tem files (per database $PGDATA/base//pgsql_tmp) (see note about work_mem)
postgresql.conf tweaks:
shared_memory: 30% of available RAM but not more than 6 to 8GB. It seems to be better to have less shared memory (2GB - 4GB) for write intensive workloads
work_mem: mostly for select queries with sorts/aggregations. This is per connection setting and query can allocate that value multiple times. If data can't fit then disk is used (pgsql_tmp). Check "explain analyze" to see how much memory do you need
fsync and synchronous_commit: Default values are safe but If you can tolerate data lost then you can turn then off
random_page_cost: if you have SSD or fast RAID array you can lower this to 2.0 (RAID) or even lower (1.1) for SSD
checkpoint_segments: you can go higher 32 or 64 and change checkpoint_completion_target to 0.9. Lower value allows faster after-crash recovery
Im new to database design and need some guidance.
A lot of new data is inserted to my database throughout the day. (100k rows per day)
The data is never modified or deleted once it has been inserted.
How can I optimize this database for retrieval speed?
My ideas
Create two databases (and possible on different hard drives) and merge the two at night when traffic is low
Create some special indexes...
Your recommendation is highly appreciated.
UPDATE:
My database only has a single table.
100k/day is actually fairly low. 3M/month, 40M/year. You can store 10 years archive and not reach 1B rows.
The most important thing to choose in your design will be the clustered key(s). You need to make sure that they are narrow and can serve all the queries your application will normally use. Any query that will end up in table scan will completely trash your memory by fetching in the entire table. So, no surprises there, your driving factor in your design is the actual load you'll have: exactly what queries will you be running.
A common problem (more often neglected than not) with any high insert rate is that eventually every row inserted will have to be deleted. Not acknowledging this is a pipe dream. The proper strategy depends on many factors, but probably the best bet is on a sliding window partitioning scheme. See How to Implement an Automatic Sliding Window in a Partitioned Table. This cannot be some afterthought, the choice for how to remove data will permeate every aspect of your design and you better start making a strategy now.
The best tip I can give which all big sites use to speed up there website is:
CACHE CACHE CACHE
use redis/memcached to cache your data! Because memory is (blazingly)fast and disc I/O is expensive.
Queue writes
Also for extra performance you could queue up the writes in memory for a little while before flushing them to disc -> writting them to SQL database. Off course then you have the risk off losing data if you keep it in memory and your computer crashes or has power failure or something
Context missing
Also I don't think you gave us much context!
What I think is missing is:
architecture.
What kind of server are you having VPS/shared hosting.
What kind of Operating system does it have linux/windows/macosx
computer specifics like how much memory available, cpu etc.
a find your definition of data a bit vague. Could you not attach a diagram or something which explains your domain a little bit. For example something like
this using http://yuml.me/
Your requirements are way to general. For MS SQL server 100k (more or less "normal") records per days should not be a problem, if you have decent hardware. Obviously you want to write fast to the database, but you ask for optimization for retrieval performance. That does not match very well! ;-) Tuning a database is a special skill on its own. So you will never get the general answer you would like to have.
I have a database containing a single huge table. At the moment a query can take anything from 10 to 20 minutes and I need that to go down to 10 seconds. I have spent months trying different products like GridSQL. GridSQL works fine, but is using its own parser which does not have all the needed features. I have also optimized my database in various ways without getting the speedup I need.
I have a theory on how one could scale out queries, meaning that I utilize several nodes to run a single query in parallel. A precondition is that the data is partitioned (vertically), one partition placed on each node. The idea is to take an incoming SQL query and simply run it exactly like it is on all the nodes. When the results are returned to a coordinator node, the same query is run on the union of the resultsets. I realize that an aggregate function like average need to be rewritten into a count and sum to the nodes and that the coordinator divides the sum of the sums with the sum of the counts to get the average.
What kinds of problems could not easily be solved using this model. I believe one issue would be the count distinct function.
Edit: I am getting so many nice suggestions, but none have addressed the method.
It's a data volume problem, not necessarily an architecture problem.
Whether on 1 machine or 1000 machines, if you end up summarizing 1,000,000 rows, you're going to have problems.
Rather than normalizing you data, you need to de-normalize it.
You mention in a comment that your data base is "perfect for your purpose", when, obviously, it's not. It's too slow.
So, something has to give. Your perfect model isn't working, as you need to process too much data in too short of a time. Sounds like you need some higher level data sets than your raw data. Perhaps a data warehousing solution. Who knows, not enough information to really say.
But there are a lot of things you can do to satisfy a specific subset of queries with a good response time, while still allowing ad hoc queries that respond in "10-20 minutes".
Edit regarding comment:
I am not familiar with "GridSQL", or what it does.
If you send several, identical SQL queries to individual "shard" databases, each containing a subset, then the simple selection query will scale to the network (i.e. you will eventually become network bound to the controller), as this is a truly, parallel, stateless process.
The problem becomes, as you mentioned, the secondary processing, notably sorting and aggregates, as this can only be done on the final, "raw" result set.
That means that your controller ends up, inevitably, becoming your bottleneck and, in the end, regardless of how "scaled out" you are, you still have to contend with a data volume issue. If you send your query out to 1000 node and inevitably have to summarize or sort the 1000 row result set from each node, resulting in 1M rows, you still have a long result time and large data processing demand on a single machine.
I don't know what database you are using, and I don't know the specifics about individual databases, but you can see how if you actually partition your data across several disk spindles, and have a decent, modern, multi-core processor, the database implementation itself can handle much of this scaling in terms of parallel disk spindle requests for you. Which implementations actually DO do this, I can't say. I'm just suggesting that it's possible for them to (and some may well do this).
But, my general point, is if you are running, specifically, aggregates, then you are likely processing too much data if you're hitting the raw sources each time. If you analyze your queries, you may well be able to "pre-summarize" your data at various levels of granularity to help avoid the data saturation problem.
For example, if you are storing individual web hits, but are more interested in activity based on each hour of the day (rather than the subsecond data you may be logging), summarizing to the hour of the day alone can reduce your data demand dramatically.
So, scaling out can certainly help, but it may well not be the only solution to the problem, rather it would be a component. Data warehousing is designed to address these kinds of problems, but does not work well with "ad hoc" queries. Rather you need to have a reasonable idea of what kinds of queries you want to support and design it accordingly.
One huge table - can this be normalised at all?
If you are doing mostly select queries, have you considered either normalising to a data warehouse that you then query, or running analysis services and a cube to do your pre-processing for you?
From your question, what you are doing sounds like the sort of thing a cube is optimised for, and could be done without you having to write all the plumbing.
By trying custom solution (grid) you introduce a lot of complexity. Maybe, it's your only solution, but first did you try partitioning the table (native solution)?
I'd seriously be looking into an OLAP solution. The trick with the Cube is once built it can be queried in lots of ways that you may not have considered. And as #HLGEM mentioned, have you addressed indexing?
Even at in millions of rows, a good search should be logarithmic not linear. If you have even one query which results in a scan then your performance will be destroyed. We might need an example of your structure to see if we can help more?
I also agree fully with #Mason, have you profiled your query and investigated the query plan to see where your bottlenecks are. Adding nodes improving speed makes me think that your query might be CPU bound.
David,
Are you using all of the features of GridSQL? You can also use constraint exclusion partitioning, effectively breaking out your big table into several smaller tables. Depending on your WHERE clause, when the query is processed it may look at a lot less data and return results much faster.
Also, are you using multiple logical nodes per physical server? Configuring it that way can take advantage of otherwise idle cores.
If you monitor the servers during execution, is the bottleneck IO or CPU?
Also alluded to here is that you may want to roll up rows in your fact table into summary tables/cubes. I do not know enough about Tableau, will it automatically use the appropriate cube and drill down only when necessary? If so, it seems like you would get big gains doing something like this.
My guess (based on nothing but my gut) is that any gains you might see from parallelization will be eaten up by reaggregation and subsequent queries of the results. Further, I would think that writing might get more complicated with pk/fk/constraints. If this were my world, I would probably create many indexed views on top of my table (and other views) that optimized for the particular queries I need to execute (which I have worked with successfully on 10million+ row tables.)
If you run the incoming query, unpartitioned, on each node, why will any node finish before a single node running the same query would finish? Am I misunderstanding your execution plan?
I think this is, in part, going to depend on the nature of the queries you're executing and, in particular, how many rows contribute to the final result set. But surely you'll need to partition the query somehow among the nodes.
Your method to scale out queries works fine.
In fact, I've implemented such a method in:
http://code.google.com/p/shard-query
It uses a parser, but it supports most SQL constructs.
It doesn't yet support count(distinct expr) but this is doable and I plan to add support in the future.
I also have a tool called Flexviews (google for flexviews materialized views)
This tool lets you create materialized views (summary tables) which include various aggregate functions and joins.
Those tools combined together can yield massive scalability improvements for OLAP type queries.
I have a stored proc that processes a large amount of data (about 5m rows in this example). The performance varies wildly. I've had the process running in as little as 15 minutes and seen it run for as long as 4 hours.
For maintenance, and in order to verify that the logic and processing is correct, we have the SP broken up into sections:
TRUNCATE and populate a work table (indexed) we can verify later with automated testing tools.
Join several tables together (including some of these work tables) to product another work table
Repeat 1 and/or 2 until a final output is produced.
My concern is that this is a single SP and so gets an execution plan when it is first run (even WITH RECOMPILE). But at that time, the work tables (permanent tables in a Work schema) are empty.
I am concerned that, regardless of the indexing scheme, the execution plan will be poor.
I am considering breaking up the SP and calling separate SPs from within it so that they could take advantage of a re-evaluated execution plan after the data in the work tables is built. I have also seen reference to using EXEC to run dynamic SQL which, obviously might get a RECOMPILE also.
I'm still trying to get SHOWPLAN permissions, so I'm flying quite blind.
Are you able to determine whether there are any locking problems? Are you running the SP in sufficiently small transactions?
Breaking it up into subprocedures should have no benefit.
Somebody should be concerned about your productivity, working without basic optimization resources. That suggests there may be other possible unseen issues as well.
Grab the free copy of "Dissecting Execution Plan" in the link below and maybe you can pick up a tip or two from it that will give you some idea of what's really going on under the hood of your SP.
http://dbalink.wordpress.com/2008/08/08/dissecting-sql-server-execution-plans-free-ebook/
Are you sure that the variability you're seeing is caused by "bad" execution plans? This may be a cause, but there may be a number of other reasons:
"other" load on the db machine
when using different data, there may be "easy" and "hard" data
issues with having to allocate more memory/file storage
...
Have you tried running the SP with the same data a few times?
Also, in order to figure out what is causing the runtime/variability, I'd try to do some detailed measuring to pin the problem down to a specific section of the code. (Easiest way would be to insert some log calls at various points in the sp). Then try to explain why that section is slow (other than "5M rows ;-)) and figure out a way to make that faster.
For now, I think there are a few questions to answer before going down the "splitting up the sp" route.
You're right it is quite difficult for you to get a clear picture of what is happening behind the scenes until you can get the "actual" execution plans from several executions of your overall process.
One point to consider perhaps. Are your work tables physical of temporary tables? If they are physical you will get a performance gain by inserting new data into a new table without an index (i.e. a heap) which you can then build an index on after all the data has been inserted.
Also, what is the purpose of your process. It sounds like you are moving quite a bit of data around, in which case you may wish to consider the use of partitioning. You can switch in and out data to your main table with relative ease.
Hope what I have detailed is clear but please feel free to pose further questions.
Cheers, John
In several cases I've seen this level of diversity of execution times / query plans comes down to statistics. I would recommend some tests running update stats against the tables you are using just before the process is run. This will both force a re-evaluation of the execution plan by SQL and, I suspect, give you more consistent results. Additionally you may do well to see if the differences in execution time correlate with re-indexing jobs by your dbas. Perhaps you could also gather some index health statistics before each run.
If not, as other answerers have suggested, you are more likely suffering from locking and/or contention issues.
Good luck with it.
The only thing I can think that an execution plan would do wrong when there's no data is err on the side of using a table scan instead of an index, since table scans are super fast when the whole table will fit into memory. Are there other negatives you're actually observing or are sure are happening because there's no data when an execution plan is created?
You can force usage of indexes in your query...
Seems to me like you might be going down the wrong path.
Is this an infeed or outfeed of some sort or are you creating a report? If it is a feed, I would suggest that you change the process to use SSIS which should be able to move 5 million records very fast.