From: | Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Drouvot, Bertrand" <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |
Date: | 2023-08-16 05:34:57 |
Message-ID: | CAFPTHDZw2G3Pax0smymMjfPqdPcZhMWo36f9F+TwNTs0HFxK+w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 8:38 PM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 3:22 PM shveta malik <shveta(dot)malik(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 11:11 AM Drouvot, Bertrand
> > <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On 8/8/23 7:01 AM, shveta malik wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 3:17 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
> > > > <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >>
> > > >> On 8/4/23 1:32 PM, shveta malik wrote:
> > > >>> On Fri, Aug 4, 2023 at 2:44 PM Drouvot, Bertrand
> > > >>> <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > >>>> On 7/28/23 4:39 PM, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > Agreed. That is why in v10,v11 patches, we have different infra for
> > > > sync-slot worker i.e. it is not relying on "logical replication
> > > > background worker" anymore.
> > >
> > > yeah saw that, looks like the right way to go to me.
> > >
> > > >> Maybe we should start some tests/benchmark with only one sync worker to get numbers
> > > >> and start from there?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, we can do that performance testing to figure out the difference
> > > > between the two modes. I will try to get some statistics on this.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Great, thanks!
> > >
> >
> > We (myself and Ajin) performed the tests to compute the lag in standby
> > slots as compared to primary slots with different number of slot-sync
> > workers configured.
> >
> > 3 DBs were created, each with 30 tables and each table having one
> > logical-pub/sub configured. So this made a total of 90 logical
> > replication slots to be synced. Then the workload was run for aprox 10
> > mins. During this workload, at regular intervals, primary and standby
> > slots' lsns were captured (from pg_replication_slots) and compared. At
> > each capture, the intent was to know how much is each standby's slot
> > lagging behind corresponding primary's slot by taking the distance
> > between confirmed_flush_lsn of primary and standby slot. Then we took
> > the average (integer value) of this distance over the span of 10 min
> > workload and this is what we got:
> >
>
> I have attached the scripts for schema-setup, running workload and
> capturing lag. Please go through Readme for details.
>
>
I did some more tests for 10,20 and 40 slots to calculate the average
lsn distance
between slots, comparing 1 worker and 3 workers.
My results are as follows:
10 slots
1 worker: 5529.75527426 (average lsn distance between primary and
standby per slot)
3 worker: 2224.57589134
20 slots
1 worker: 9592.87234043
3 worker: 3194.62933333
40 slots
1 worker: 20566.0933333
3 worker: 7885.80952381
90 slots
1 worker: 36706.8405797
3 worker: 10236.6393162
regards,
Ajin Cherian
Fujitsu Australia
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
image/png | 11.4 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2023-08-16 06:04:46 | some code cleanup in index.c and indexcmds.c |
Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2023-08-16 05:28:18 | Re: Memory consumed by child SpecialJoinInfo in partitionwise join planning |