From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Luca Ferrari <fluca1978(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, postgres performance list <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: hint in determining effective_io_concurrency |
Date: | 2021-07-07 21:42:40 |
Message-ID: | CAHyXU0wgwtY7KxjvZhCbfo7jk_L6xWfoB4tynAnnc2tJrjQzoQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 2:55 PM Luca Ferrari <fluca1978(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 9:52 PM Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 09:45:15PM +0200, Luca Ferrari wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > > I'm unable to find (apparently) a way to find out a possible value to
> > > start with for effective_io_concurrency.
> > > I suspect that benchmarking, e.g., using bonnie++ or sysbench and
> > > testing with different values of concurrency could help to determine
> > > the max number of concurrent request, (tps, lower latency, ecc.).
> > > Is thjs correct or is there another suggested way?
> >
> > I recommend 256 for SSDs or other RAM-like fsync systems, and maybe
> > maybe 16 for magnetic.
>
>
> Thanks Bruce, this is a very good starting point.
> But is there a rationale about those numbers? I mean, if I change the
> storage system, how should I set a correct number?
See thread, https://postgrespro.com/list/thread-id/2069516
The setting only impacts certain scan operations, it's not a gamechanger.
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Allan Barrielle | 2021-07-07 23:00:28 | ETL - sql orchestrator is stuck when there is not sleep() between queries |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2021-07-02 14:30:13 | Re: slow performance with cursor |