From: | Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Sequential Scan Read-Ahead |
Date: | 2002-04-25 09:19:02 |
Message-ID: | Pine.NEB.4.43.0204251805000.3111-100000@angelic.cynic.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 25 Apr 2002, Curt Sampson wrote:
> Here's the ratio table again, with another column comparing the
> aggregate number of requests per second for one process and four
> processes:
>
Just for interest, I ran this again with 20 processes working
simultaneously. I did six runs at each blockread size and summed
the tps for each process to find the aggregate number of reads per
second during the test. I dropped the higest and the lowest ones,
and averaged the rest. Here's the new table:
1 proc 4 procs 20 procs
1 block 310 440 260
2 blocks 262 401 481
4 blocks 199 346 354
8 blocks 132 260 250
16 blocks 66 113 116
I'm not sure at all why performance gets so much *worse* with a lot of
contention on the 1K reads. This could have something to with NetBSD, or
its buffer cache, or my laptop's crappy little disk drive....
Or maybe I'm just running out of CPU.
cjs
--
Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org
Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Curt Sampson | 2002-04-25 10:47:13 | Re: Sequential Scan Read-Ahead |
Previous Message | Lincoln Yeoh | 2002-04-25 08:33:36 | Re: Sequential Scan Read-Ahead |