From: | "fkater(at)googlemail(dot)com" <fkater(at)googlemail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Inserting 8MB bytea: just 25% of disk perf used? |
Date: | 2010-01-18 16:04:20 |
Message-ID: | 20100118160420.GF2913@comppasch2 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Hannu Krosing:
> did you also test this with fsync=off ?
Yes. No significant difference.
> I suspect that what you are seeing is the effect of randomly writing to
> the index files. While sequential write performance can be up to
> 80MB/sec on modern drives, sequential writes are an order of magnitude
> slower. And at your data sizes you are very likely to hit a
> CHECKPOINT, which needs to do some random writes.
Yes, from the server log I noticed that I hit checkpoints
too early and too often. I tried the astronomical value of
1000 for checkpoint_segments to not hit a single one for the
whole test run (copying 800 MB) -- even though that is no
good idea in practice of course.
It took even longer then. Probably because the server
created a lot of 16 MB log files (about 300 in my case)
which is presumly more costy (at least for the first run?)
than overwriting existing files. I am not too much into
that, though, since this is not a solution anyway on the
long run IMHO.
Thanks again.
Felix
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | fkater@googlemail.com | 2010-01-18 16:13:15 | Re: Inserting 8MB bytea: just 25% of disk perf used? |
Previous Message | fkater@googlemail.com | 2010-01-18 13:17:58 | Re: Inserting 8MB bytea: just 25% of disk perf used? |