From: | David Kerr <dmk(at)mr-paradox(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance? |
Date: | 2010-04-20 18:46:14 |
Message-ID: | 20100420184614.GD53489@mr-paradox.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 01:17:02PM -0500, Kevin Grittner wrote:
- David Kerr <dmk(at)mr-paradox(dot)net> wrote:
-
- > Incidentally the code is written to work like this :
- >
- > while (read X lines in file){
- > Process those lines.
- > write lines to DB.
- > }
-
- Unless you're selecting from multiple database tables in one query,
- effective_cache_size shouldn't make any difference. There's
- probably some other reason for the difference.
-
- A couple wild shots in the dark:
-
- Any chance the source files were cached the second time, but not the
- first?
-
- Do you have a large checkpoint_segments setting, and did the second
- run without a new initdb?
-
- -Kevin
no i don't think the files would be cached the 2nd time. I ran it multiple times
and got the same performance each time. It wasn't until i changed the parameter
that performance got better.
I've got checkpoint_segments = 300
Dave
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Kerr | 2010-04-20 18:47:27 | Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance? |
Previous Message | Roger Ging | 2010-04-20 18:38:04 | performance change from 8.3.1 to later releases |