From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PostgreSQL Read IOPS limit per connection |
Date: | 2019-01-09 19:14:11 |
Message-ID: | CAHyXU0wYxvJ4-vuU14Dy5NeXsQEN+8LUntn0fqfNyQVxTOAgyw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 7:29 PM Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 08:20:23PM -0500, Jeff Janes wrote:
> > Also, you would want to use the newest version of PostgreSQL, as 9.6
> > doesn't have parallel query, which is much more generally applicable than
> > effective_io_concurrency is.
effective_io_concurrency only applies to certain queries. When it
does apply it can work wonders. See:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAHyXU0yiVvfQAnR9cyH=HWh1WbLRsioe=mzRJTHwtr=2azsTdQ@mail.gmail.com
for an example of how it can benefit.
parallel query is not going to help single threaded pg_bench results.
you are going to be entirely latency bound (network from bebench to
postgres, then postgres to storage). On my dell crapbox I was getting
2200tps so you have some point of slowness relative to me, probably
not the disk itself.
Geetting faster performance is an age-old problem; you need to
aggregate specific requests into more general ones, move the
controlling logic into the database itself, or use various other
strategies. Lowering latency is a hardware problem and can force
trade-offs (like, don't use a SAN) and has specific boundaries that
are not easy to bust through.
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Abadie Lana | 2019-01-09 19:22:45 | Re: select query does not pick up the right index |
Previous Message | David Rowley | 2019-01-09 16:41:24 | Re: select query does not pick up the right index |