| From: | Christopher Petrilli <petrilli(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Sustained inserts per sec ... ? |
| Date: | 2005-04-05 14:27:10 |
| Message-ID: | 59d991c4050405072746774c61@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Apr 5, 2005 12:16 AM, Christopher Petrilli <petrilli(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Looking at preliminary results from running with shared_buffers at
> 16000, it seems this may be correct. Performance was flatter for a
> BIT longer, but slammed right into the wall and started hitting the
> 3-30 second range per COPY. I've restarted the run, with fsync turned
> on (fdatasync), and we'll see.
>
> My fear is that it's some bizarre situation interacting with both
> issues, and one that might not be solvable. Does anyone else have
> much experience with this sort of sustained COPY?
Well, here's the results:
http://www.amber.org/~petrilli/diagrams/pgsql_copy500_comparison.png
The red is the run with shared_buffers turned up, but fsync off.
The blue is the run with shared_buffers turned up, but fsync on.
Note that it hits the wall sooner. Unfortunately, my brain is fried,
and not sure what that means!
Chris
--
| Christopher Petrilli
| petrilli(at)gmail(dot)com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2005-04-05 19:48:29 | Re: Sustained inserts per sec ... ? |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-04-05 05:03:52 | Re: Sustained inserts per sec ... ? |
