[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: back-bdb performance
>>>>> "Howard" == Howard Chu <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> I'm still tweaking code and gathering data. Here are some (accurate) times
> for using ldapadd to load 10000 entries into slapd (with no attribute
Thanks, these results are quite promising!
> back-bdb, a couple days ago
> ldadd 6.400u 1.230s 6:34.97 1.9% 0+0k 0+0io 1561pf+0w
> slapd 136.410u 223.560s 6:38.83 90.2% 0+0k 0+0io 3193pf+0w
> back-bdb, with the newer entry_encode/decode routines
> ldadd 6.600u 1.040s 7:02.39 1.8% 0+0k 0+0io 2354pf+0w
> slapd 153.930u 245.990s 7:06.63 93.7% 0+0k 0+0io 3172pf+0w
> .... (snipped)
Why is there an increase in slapd user time between the above two runs? I
thought your newer entry_encode/decode routines should reduce the time.
> For write operations, it's quite obvious that all of those index updates are
> costing a lot in terms of CPU time and I/O operations. The cost arises from
> the transaction logging. The actual volume of data that slapd is managing is
> reasonably small; with my first entry_encode/decode routines the id2entry
> database was around 20MB for the 10000 entries. The transaction logs
> generated from loading those entries was over 1.5GB. With my current
> entry_encode/decode routines, the id2entry database is now down to about
> 10MB, but the transaction logs were still over 1.2GB. After I eliminated the
> DN_SUBTREE index for the backend's suffix, as you can see there was a
> dramatic savings in time, and the transaction logs only totalled 520MB.
Wow, I am surprised that the transaction log grow to 520MB with attribute
indexing disabled. Is most of this due to just the dn2entry indexing?
> I'm currently investigating an alternate indexing layout in the hopes that I
> can reduce the transaction cost even further. Ultimately I would like to
> find a way to make the transaction cost effectively disappear. I have
> another variant of back-bdb that uses a hierarchical data structure, thus
> completely eliminating the dn2id database. I have just gotten it into
> working order today, and run it successfully through the test suite. For the
> same 10000 entries, this backend loads them in only 27 seconds.
> ldadd 5.960u 0.800s 0:27.44 24.6% 0+0k 0+0io 265pf+0w
> slapd 16.030u 2.270s 0:29.94 61.1% 0+0k 0+0io 2995pf+0w
> The transaction logs for loading these 10000 entries amount to only 20.8MB.
> The id2entry database and tree structure consume only 9.8MB.
> Of course, this backend still uses the existing indexing layout, so as soon
> as you turn on attribute indices the transaction overhead skyrockets again.
> So I'm returning my attention to the index management for now...
This is really good! I'll watch out for your index management changes.