Re: more anti-postgresql FUD

From: Alexander Staubo <alex(at)purefiction(dot)net>
To: andrew(at)supernews(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: more anti-postgresql FUD
Date: 2006-10-13 15:22:25
Message-ID: ADA35E04-9E87-480C-8564-73898DF556CA@purefiction.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

On Oct 13, 2006, at 17:13 , Andrew - Supernews wrote:

> On 2006-10-13, Alexander Staubo <alex(at)purefiction(dot)net> wrote:
>> On my box (Dell PowerEdge 1850, dual Xeon 2.8GHz, 4GB RAM, 10kRPM
>> SCSI, Linux 2.6.15, Ubuntu) I get 1,100 updates/sec, compared to
>> 10,000 updates/sec with MySQL/InnoDB, using a stock installation of
>> both. Insert performance is only around 10% worse than MySQL at
>> around 9,000 rows/sec. Curiously enough, changing shared_buffers,
>> wal_buffers, effective_cache_size and even fsync seems to have no
>> effect on update performance, while fsync has a decent effect on
>> insert performance.
>
> Your disk probably has write caching enabled. A 10krpm disk should be
> limiting you to under 170 transactions/sec with a single connection
> and fsync enabled.

What formula did you use to get to that number? Is there a generic
way on Linux to turn off (controller-based?) write caching?

Alexander.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Merlin Moncure 2006-10-13 15:35:22 Re: more anti-postgresql FUD
Previous Message Andrew - Supernews 2006-10-13 15:13:29 Re: more anti-postgresql FUD

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2006-10-13 15:25:28 Re: ./configure argument checking
Previous Message Andrew - Supernews 2006-10-13 15:13:29 Re: more anti-postgresql FUD