| From: | Yeb Havinga <yebhavinga(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Testing Sandforce SSD |
| Date: | 2010-08-03 15:37:36 |
| Message-ID: | 4C5837C0.6060704@gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Yeb Havinga wrote:
> Hannu Krosing wrote:
>> Did it fit in shared_buffers, or system cache ?
>>
> Database was ~5GB, server has 16GB, shared buffers was set to 1920MB.
>> I first noticed this several years ago, when doing a COPY to a large
>> table with indexes took noticably longer (2-3 times longer) when the
>> indexes were in system cache than when they were in shared_buffers.
>>
> I read this as a hint: try increasing shared_buffers. I'll redo the
> pgbench run with increased shared_buffers.
Shared buffers raised from 1920MB to 3520MB:
pgbench -v -l -c 20 -M prepared -T 1800 test
starting vacuum...end.
starting vacuum pgbench_accounts...end.
transaction type: TPC-B (sort of)
scaling factor: 300
query mode: prepared
number of clients: 20
duration: 1800 s
number of transactions actually processed: 12971714
tps = 7206.244065 (including connections establishing)
tps = 7206.349947 (excluding connections establishing)
:-)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Merlin Moncure | 2010-08-03 16:27:55 | Re: Testing Sandforce SSD |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2010-08-03 14:02:19 | Re: Testing Sandforce SSD |