For part of today, I’ve been experimenting with the new-ish pg_shard extension contributed by CitusData. I had pretty high hopes for this module and was extremely excited to try it out. After screwing around with it for a while, I can say it has a lot of potential. Yet I can’t reasonably recommend it in its current form. The README file suggests quite a few understandable caveats, but it’s the ones they don’t mention that hurt a lot more.
Here’s what I encountered while experimenting:
- No support for transactions.
- No support for the
EXPLAINcommand to produce query plans.
- No support for
COPYfor bulk loading.
- A bug that causes worker nodes to reject use of
The first two are probably the worst, and the third is hardly trivial. I’m pretty long-winded, but here’s my view on potential impact.
By itself, lacking transaction support makes
pg_shard more of a toy in my opinion. This breaks the A in ACID, and as such, reduces PostgreSQL from a legitimate database, to a fun experiment in assuming bad data never makes it into a sharded table. I would never, in good conscience, deploy such a thing into a production environment.
By not providing
EXPLAIN support, it is not possible to see what a query might do on a sharded cluster. This is not only incredibly dangerous, but makes it impossible to troubleshoot or optimize queries. Which shards would the query run on? How much data came from each candidate shard? There’s no way to know. It is possible to load the
auto_explain module on each worker node to examine what it did, but there’s no way to check the query plan beforehand.
And what about
COPY? The documentation states that
INSERT is the only way to get data into a table. Outside of a transaction, multiple inserts are incredibly slow due to round trip time, single-transaction context, fsync delays, and the list goes on. I created a VM and threw a measly 100k individual inserts at a regular, unsharded table, and the whole job took over a minute. Replaying the script in a transaction cut that time down to ten seconds. On the
pg_shard copy of the table with two worker nodes, the same inserts required two minutes and twenty seconds. For 100k records. Presumably this could be corrected by utilizing several loader threads in parallel, but I haven’t tested that yet.
The primary reason sharding might be used, is to horizontally scale a very large table. Based on the times I saw, it would take 15 days to load a table with one billion rows. The sample table I used was only four columns and had no indexes to slow the loading process. Yet the
COPY statement needed only 300ms for the same amount of data, and could load one billion rows of that table in under an hour. So even if I ignored the lack of transactions and
EXPLAIN support, getting our 20-billion rows of data into
pg_shard simply wouldn’t be feasible.
I really, really wanted to consider
pg_shard on one of the large multi-TB instances I administer. I still do. But for now, I’m going to watch the project and check in on it occasionally and see if they eventually work out these kinks. It’s a great prototype, and having CitusData behind it suggests it’ll eventually become something spectacular.
Of course, there’s always the possibility that an as yet unnamed project somewhere out there already is. If so, please point me to it;
pg_shard teased my salivary glands, and I want more.