How does PostgreSQL perform writes so much faster than SQLite?
I did a simple integer update performance test. SQLite did only 15 updates per second while PostgreSQL did 1500 updates per second.
The number with the SQLite case seems to be normal.
The FAQ in the SQLite site explains as if it's a fundamental limitation of a rotational disk.
Actually, SQLite will easily do 50,000 or more INSERT statements per second on an average desktop computer. But it will only do a few dozen transactions per second. Transaction speed is limited by the rotational speed of your disk drive. A transaction normally requires two complete rotations of the disk platter, which on a 7200RPM disk drive limits you to about 60 transactions per second. Transaction speed is limited by disk drive speed because (by default) SQLite actually waits until the data really is safely stored on the disk surface before the transaction is complete. That way, if you suddenly lose power or if your OS crashes, your data is still safe. For details, read about atomic commit in SQLite..
By default, each INSERT statement is its own transaction. But if you surround multiple INSERT statements with BEGIN...COMMIT then all the inserts are grouped into a single transaction. The time needed to commit the transaction is amortized over all the enclosed insert statements and so the time per insert statement is greatly reduced.
Another option is to run PRAGMA synchronous=OFF. This command will cause SQLite to not wait on data to reach the disk surface, which will make write operations appear to be much faster. But if you lose power in the middle of a transaction, your database file might go corrupt.
Is this description true? Then, how can PostgreSQL perform so much faster than SQLite? (I set both fsync and synchronous_commit option to on in PostgreSQL)
UPDATE:
Here's the full test code written in Clojure:
(defproject foo "0.1.0-SNAPSHOT"
:repositories {"sonatype-oss-public" "https://oss.sonatype.org/content/groups/public/"}
:dependencies [[org.clojure/clojure "1.5.1"]
[org.clojure/java.jdbc "0.3.0-SNAPSHOT"]
[com.mchange/c3p0 "0.9.2.1"]
[org.xerial/sqlite-jdbc "3.7.2"]
[postgresql "9.1-901.jdbc4"]])
(ns foo.core
(:require [clojure.java.jdbc :as jdbc]
[clojure.java.jdbc.ddl :as ddl])
(:import [com.mchange.v2.c3p0 ComboPooledDataSource]))
(def sqlite
(let [spec {:classname "org.sqlite.JDBC"
:subprotocol "sqlite"
:subname "test.db"}]
{:datasource (doto (ComboPooledDataSource.)
(.setDriverClass (:classname spec))
(.setJdbcUrl (str "jdbc:" (:subprotocol spec) ":" (:subname spec)))
(.setMaxIdleTimeExcessConnections (* 30 60))
(.setMaxIdleTime (* 3 60 60)))}))
(def postgres
(let [spec {:classname "org.postgresql.Driver"
:subprotocol "postgresql"
:subname "//localhost:5432/testdb"
:user "postgres"
:password "uiop"}]
{:datasource (doto (ComboPooledDataSource.)
(.setDriverClass (:classname spec))
(.setJdbcUrl (str "jdbc:" (:subprotocol spec) ":" (:subname spec)))
(.setUser (:user spec))
(.setPassword (:password spec))
(.setMaxIdleTimeExcessConnections (* 30 60))
(.setMaxIdleTime (* 3 60 60)))}))
(doseq [x [sqlite postgres]]
(jdbc/db-do-commands x
(ddl/create-table :foo [:id :int "PRIMARY KEY"] [:bar :int])))
(doseq [x [sqlite postgres]]
(jdbc/insert! x :foo {:id 1 :bar 1}))
(defmacro bench
[expr n]
`(dotimes [_# 3]
(let [start# (. System (nanoTime))]
(dotimes [_# ~n]
~expr)
(let [end# (. System (nanoTime))
elapsed# (/ (double (- end# start#)) 1000000.0)
operation-per-sec# (long (/ (double ~n) (/ (double (- end# start#)) 1000000000)))]
(prn (str "Elapsed time: " elapsed# " ms (" (format "%,d" operation-per-sec#) " ops)"))))))
(bench (jdbc/query sqlite ["select * from foo"]) 20000)
(bench (jdbc/execute! sqlite ["update foo set bar=bar+1 where id=?" 1]) 100)
(bench (jdbc/query postgres ["select * from foo"]) 20000)
(bench (jdbc/execute! postgres ["update foo set bar=bar+1 where id=?" 1]) 5000)
And the output is:
; Running "select * from foo" 20000 times in SQLite
"Elapsed time: 1802.426963 ms (11,096 ops)"
"Elapsed time: 1731.118831 ms (11,553 ops)"
"Elapsed time: 1749.842658 ms (11,429 ops)"
; Running "update foo set bar=bar+1 where id=1" 100 times in SQLite
"Elapsed time: 6362.829057 ms (15 ops)"
"Elapsed time: 6405.25075 ms (15 ops)"
"Elapsed time: 6352.943553 ms (15 ops)"
; Running "select * from foo" 20000 times in PostgreSQL
"Elapsed time: 2898.636079 ms (6,899 ops)"
"Elapsed time: 2824.77372 ms (7,080 ops)"
"Elapsed time: 2837.622659 ms (7,048 ops)"
; Running "update foo set bar=bar+1 where id=1" 5000 times in PostgreSQL
"Elapsed time: 3213.120219 ms (1,556 ops)"
"Elapsed time: 3564.249492 ms (1,402 ops)"
"Elapsed time: 3280.128708 ms (1,524 ops)"
pg_fsync_test result:
C:temp>"C:Program FilesPostgreSQL9.3binpg_test_fsync"
5 seconds per test
O_DIRECT supported on this platform for open_datasync and open_sync.
Compare file sync methods using one 8kB write:
(in wal_sync_method preference order, except fdatasync
is Linux's default)
open_datasync 81199.920 ops/sec 12 usecs/op
fdatasync n/a
fsync 45.337 ops/sec 22057 usecs/op
fsync_writethrough 46.470 ops/sec 21519 usecs/op
open_sync n/a
Compare file sync methods using two 8kB writes:
(in wal_sync_method preference order, except fdatasync
is Linux's default)
open_datasync 41093.981 ops/sec 24 usecs/op
fdatasync n/a
fsync 38.569 ops/sec 25927 usecs/op
fsync_writethrough 36.970 ops/sec 27049 usecs/op
open_sync n/a
Compare open_sync with different write sizes:
(This is designed to compare the cost of writing 16kB
in different write open_sync sizes.)
1 * 16kB open_sync write n/a
2 * 8kB open_sync writes n/a
4 * 4kB open_sync writes n/a
8 * 2kB open_sync writes n/a
16 * 1kB open_sync writes n/a
Test if fsync on non-write file descriptor is honored:
(If the times are similar, fsync() can sync data written
on a different descriptor.)
write, fsync, close 45.564 ops/sec 21947 usecs/op
write, close, fsync 33.373 ops/sec 29964 usecs/op
Non-Sync'ed 8kB writes:
write 889.800 ops/sec 1124 usecs/op
You are correct to be suspicious. PostgreSQL with the settings you indicate should not be able to perform anything near 1500 updates in separate sequential transactions per second to rotating media.
Probably something in your IO stack is lying or buggy about how it implements sync. Which means your data is at risk of serious corruption after an unexpected power outage or OS failure.
Looking at the result of pg_test_fsync, this is indeed the case. open_datasync, which is the default under Windows, appears to be unrealistically fast and so must be unsafe. I see the same thing when I run pg_test_fsync on my Windows7 machine.
It breaks down to how they implement snapshot isolation.
SQLite uses file locking as a means to isolate transactions, allowing writes to hit only once all reads are done.
Postgres, in contrast, uses a more sophisticated approach called multiconcurrency version control (mvcc), that allows multiple writes to occur in parallel with multiple reads.
http://www.sqliteconcepts.org/SI_index.html
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/mvcc-intro.html
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/MVCC
Denis' answer has all the links you need. I will go for a less detailed but possbly more understandable answer.
Sqlite does not use any sophisticated transaction manager, there is not advanced multitasking logic hidden in it. It executes what you tell it to execute, in exactly that order. In other words: it does exactly what you tell it to do. If you tried using the same database from two processes - you would encounter problems.
PostgreSQL, on the other hand, is a very complex database: it efficiently supports multiple concurrent reads and writes. Think of it as a asynchronous system - you only schedule work to be done, you do not actually control it in its details - Postgres does it for you.
What to do with your efficiency? Join several - dozens - hundreds of updates/inserts into one transaction. For a simple table, you will get a very good performance.
链接地址: http://www.djcxy.com/p/3342.html上一篇: Go会受到相同的微妙记忆