Re: performance on new linux box

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Ryan Wexler" <ryan(at)iridiumsuite(dot)com>
Cc: "Jochen Erwied" <jochen(at)pgsql-performance(dot)erwied(dot)eu>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: performance on new linux box
Date: 2010-07-08 19:59:24
Message-ID: 4C35E7CC020000250003328A@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Ryan Wexler <ryan(at)iridiumsuite(dot)com> wrote:

> It still amazes me that it would account for a 5x change in IO.

If you were doing one INSERT per database transaction, for instance,
that would not be at all surprising. If you were doing one COPY in
of a million rows, it would be a bit more surprising.

Each COMMIT of a database transaction, without caching, requires
that you wait for the disk to rotate around to the right position.
Compared to the speed of RAM, that can take quite a long time. With
write caching, you might write quite a few adjacent disk sectors to
the cache, which can then all be streamed to disk on one rotation.
It can also do tricks like writing a bunch of sectors on one part of
the disk before pulling the heads all the way over to another
portion of the disk to write a bunch of sectors.

It is very good for performance to cache writes.

-Kevin

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Richard Yen 2010-07-08 20:06:27 Re: [Slony1-general] WAL partition overloaded--by autovacuum?
Previous Message David Boreham 2010-07-08 19:50:52 Re: performance on new linux box