Re: postgres 9.3 vs. 9.4

From: Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz>
To: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Mkrtchyan, Tigran" <tigran(dot)mkrtchyan(at)desy(dot)de>
Cc: postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: postgres 9.3 vs. 9.4
Date: 2014-09-18 20:56:36
Message-ID: 541B4704.9090305@catalyst.net.nz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On 19/09/14 08:32, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 4:58 AM, Mkrtchyan, Tigran
> <tigran(dot)mkrtchyan(at)desy(dot)de> wrote:
>>
>> 9.3.5:
>> 0.035940 END;
>>
>>
>> 9.4beta2:
>> 0.957854 END;
>
>
> time being spent on 'END' is definitely suggesting i/o related issues.
> This is making me very skeptical that postgres is the source of the
> problem. I also thing synchronous_commit is not set properly on the
> new instance (or possibly there is a bug or some such). Can you
> verify via:
>
> select * from pg_settings where name = 'synchronous_commit';
>
> on both servers?
>

Yes, does look suspicious. It *could* be that the 9.4 case is getting
unlucky and checkpointing just before the end of the 60s run, and 9.3
isn't.

> What is iowait? For pci-e SSD, these drives don't seem very fast...
>
>
>

These look like rebranded Micron P320's and should be extremely
fast...However I note that my Crucial/Micron M550's are very fast for
most writes *but* are much slower for sync writes (and fsync) that
happen at commit...

Cheers

Mark

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mkrtchyan, Tigran 2014-09-18 21:01:34 Re: postgres 9.3 vs. 9.4
Previous Message Merlin Moncure 2014-09-18 20:32:20 Re: postgres 9.3 vs. 9.4