Benchmark ClickHouse Database and clickhousedb_fdw

PREVIOUS POST
NEXT POST

In this research,  I wanted to see what kind of performance improvements could be gained by using a ClickHouse data source rather than PostgreSQL. Assuming that I would see performance advantages with using ClickHouse, would those advantages be retained if I access ClickHouse from within postgres using a foreign data wrapper (FDW)? The FDW in question is clickhousedb_fdw – an open source project from Percona!

The database environments under scrutiny are PostgreSQL v11, clickhousedb_fdw and a ClickHouse database. Ultimately, from within PostgreSQL v11, we are going to issue various SQL queries routed through our clickhousedb_fdw to the ClickHouse database. Then we’ll see how the FDW performance compares with those same queries executed in native PostgreSQL and native ClickHouse.

Clickhouse Database

ClickHouse is an open source column based database management system which can achieve performance of between 100 and 1000 times faster than traditional database approaches, capable of processing more than a billion rows in less than a second.

Clickhousedb_fdw

clickhousedb_fdw, a ClickHouse database foreign data wrapper, or FDW, is an open source project from Percona. Here’s a link for the GitHub project repository:

https://github.com/Percona-Lab/clickhousedb_fdw

I wrote a blog in March which tells you more about our FDW: https://www.percona.com/blog/2019/03/29/postgresql-access-clickhouse-one-of-the-fastest-column-dbmss-with-clickhousedb_fdw/

As you’ll see, this provides for an FDW for ClickHouse that allows you to SELECT from, and INSERT INTO, a ClickHouse database from within a PostgreSQL v11 server.

The FDW supports advanced features such as aggregate pushdown and joins pushdown. These significantly improve performance by utilizing the remote server’s resources for these resource intensive operations.

Benchmark environment

  • Supermicro server:
    • Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2683 v3 @ 2.00GHz
    • 2 sockets / 28 cores / 56 threads
    • Memory: 256GB of RAM
    • Storage: Samsung  SM863 1.9TB Enterprise SSD
    • Filesystem: ext4/xfs
  • OS: Linux smblade01 4.15.0-42-generic #45~16.04.1-Ubuntu
  • PostgreSQL: version 11

Benchmark tests

Rather than using some machine generated dataset for this benchmark, we used the “On Time Reporting Carrier On-Time Performance” data from 1987 to 2018. You can access the data using our shell script available here:

https://github.com/Percona-Lab/ontime-airline-performance/blob/master/download.sh

The size of the database is 85GB, providing a single table of 109 columns.

Benchmark Queries

Here are the queries I used to benchmark the ClickHouse, clickhousedb_fdw, and PostgreSQL.

Q# Query Contains Aggregates and Group By
Q1 SELECT DayOfWeek, count(*) AS c FROM ontime WHERE Year >= 2000 AND Year <= 2008 GROUP BY DayOfWeek ORDER BY c DESC;
Q2 SELECT DayOfWeek, count(*) AS c FROM ontime WHERE DepDelay>10 AND Year >= 2000 AND Year <= 2008 GROUP BY DayOfWeek ORDER BY c DESC;
Q3 SELECT Origin, count(*) AS c FROM ontime WHERE DepDelay>10 AND Year >= 2000 AND Year <= 2008 GROUP BY Origin ORDER BY c DESC LIMIT 10;
Q4 SELECT Carrier, count(*) FROM ontime WHERE DepDelay>10 AND Year = 2007 GROUP BY Carrier ORDER BY count(*) DESC;
Q5 SELECT a.Carrier, c, c2, c*1000/c2 as c3 FROM ( SELECT Carrier, count(*) AS c FROM ontime WHERE DepDelay>10 AND Year=2007 GROUP BY Carrier ) a
INNER JOIN (  SELECT   Carrier,count(*) AS c2 FROM ontime WHERE Year=2007 GROUP BY Carrier)b on a.Carrier=b.Carrier ORDER BY c3 DESC;
Q6 SELECT a.Carrier, c, c2, c*1000/c2 as c3 FROM ( SELECT Carrier,  count(*) AS c FROM ontime  WHERE DepDelay>10 AND Year >= 2000 AND
Year <= 2008 GROUP BY Carrier) a INNER JOIN ( SELECT  Carrier, count(*) AS c2 FROM ontime  WHERE Year >= 2000 AND Year <= 2008 GROUP BY Carrier ) b on a.Carrier=b.Carrier ORDER BY c3 DESC;
Q7 SELECT Carrier, avg(DepDelay) * 1000 AS c3 FROM ontime WHERE Year >= 2000 AND Year <= 2008 GROUP BY Carrier;
Q8 SELECT Year, avg(DepDelay) FROM ontime GROUP BY Year;
Q9 select Year, count(*) as c1 from ontime group by Year;
Q10 SELECT avg(cnt) FROM (SELECT Year,Month,count(*) AS cnt FROM ontime WHERE DepDel15=1 GROUP BY Year,Month) a;
Q11 select avg(c1) from (select Year,Month,count(*) as c1 from ontime group by Year,Month) a;
Q12 SELECT OriginCityName, DestCityName, count(*) AS c FROM ontime GROUP BY OriginCityName, DestCityName ORDER BY c DESC LIMIT 10;
Q13 SELECT OriginCityName, count(*) AS c FROM ontime GROUP BY OriginCityName ORDER BY c DESC LIMIT 10;
Query Contains Joins
Q14 SELECT a.Year, c1/c2 FROM ( select Year, count(*)*1000 as c1 from ontime WHERE DepDelay>10 GROUP BY Year) a
INNER JOIN (select Year, count(*) as c2 from ontime GROUP BY Year ) b on a.Year=b.Year ORDER BY a.Year;
Q15 SELECT a.”Year”, c1/c2 FROM ( select “Year”, count(*)*1000 as c1 FROM fontime WHERE “DepDelay”>10 GROUP BY “Year”) a INNER JOIN (select “Year”, count(*) as c2
FROM fontime GROUP BY “Year” ) b on a.”Year”=b.”Year”;

Table-1: Queries used in benchmark

Query executions

Here are the results from the each of the queries when run in different database set ups: PostgreSQL with and without indexes, native ClickHouse and clickhousedb_fdw. The time is shown in milliseconds. 

Q# PostgreSQL PostgreSQL (Indexed) ClickHouse clickhousedb_fdw
Q1 27920 19634 23 57
Q2 35124 17301 50 80
Q3 34046 15618 67 115
Q4 31632 7667 25 37
Q5 47220 8976 27 60
Q6 58233 24368 55 153
Q7 30566 13256 52 91
Q8 38309 60511 112 179
Q9 20674 37979 31 81
Q10 34990 20102 56 148
Q11 30489 51658 37 155
Q12 39357 33742 186 1333
Q13 29912 30709 101 384
Q14 54126 39913 124 1364212
Q15 97258 30211 245 259

Table-1: Time taken to execute the queries used in benchmark

Reviewing the results

The graph shows the query execution time in milliseconds, the X-axis shows the query number from the tables above, while the Y-axis shows the execution time in milliseconds. The results for ClickHouse and the data accessed from postgres using clickhousedb_fdw are shown. From the table, you can see there is a huge difference between PostgreSQL and ClickHouse, but there is minimal difference between ClickHouse and clickhousedb_fdw.

 

Clickhouse Vs Clickhousedb_fdw (Shows the overhead of clickhousedb_fdw)

This graph shows the difference between ClickhouseDB and clickhousedb_fdw. In most of the queries, the FDW overhead is not that great, and barely significant apart from in Q12. This query involves joins and ORDER BY clause. Because of the ORDER BY clause the GROUP/BY and ORDER BY does not push down to ClickHouse.

In Table-2 we can see the spike of time in query Q12 and Q13. To reiterate, this is caused by the ORDER BY clause. To confirm this, I ran a queries Q-14 and Q-15 with and without the ORDER BY clause.  Without the ORDER BY clause the completion time is  259ms and with ORDER BY clause, it is 1364212. To debug that the query I explain both the queries, and here is the results of explain.

 

 

 

Conclusion

The results from these experiments show that ClickHouse offers really good performance, and clickhousedb_fdw offers the benefits of ClickHouse performance from within PostgreSQL. While there is some overhead when using clickhousedb_fdw, it is negligible and is comparable to the performance achieved when running natively within the ClickHouse database. This also confirms that the PostgreSQL foreign data wrapper push-down feature provides wonderful results.

PREVIOUS POST
NEXT POST

Share this post

Comment (1)

  • Mark Callaghan Reply

    Is the data cached by the DBMS or OS?
    Is parallel query in Postgres an option for these queries?

    May 1, 2019 at 7:26 pm

Leave a Reply