From: | Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz> |
---|---|
To: | Charles Nadeau <charles(dot)nadeau(at)gmail(dot)com>, Igor Neyman <ineyman(at)perceptron(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andreas Kretschmer <andreas(at)a-kretschmer(dot)de>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Very poor read performance, query independent |
Date: | 2017-07-12 02:11:53 |
Message-ID: | a8fa0c8a-1269-338e-80a6-cb121574be7c@catalyst.net.nz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Hmm - how are you measuring that sequential scan speed of 4MB/s? I'd
recommend doing a very simple test e.g, here's one on my workstation -
13 GB single table on 1 SATA drive - cold cache after reboot, sequential
scan using Postgres 9.6.2:
bench=# EXPLAIN SELECT count(*) FROM pgbench_accounts;
QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aggregate (cost=2889345.00..2889345.01 rows=1 width=8)
-> Seq Scan on pgbench_accounts (cost=0.00..2639345.00
rows=100000000 width=0)
(2 rows)
bench=# SELECT pg_relation_size('pgbench_accounts');
pg_relation_size
------------------
13429514240
(1 row)
bench=# SELECT count(*) FROM pgbench_accounts;
count
-----------
100000000
(1 row)
Time: 118884.277 ms
So doing the math seq read speed is about 110MB/s (i.e 13 GB in 120
sec). Sure enough, while I was running the query iostat showed:
Device: rrqm/s wrqm/s r/s w/s rMB/s wMB/s avgrq-sz
avgqu-sz await r_await w_await svctm %util
sda 0.00 0.00 926.00 0.00 114.89 0.00
254.10 1.90 2.03 2.03 0.00 1.08 100.00
So might be useful for us to see something like that from your system -
note you need to check you really have flushed the cache, and that no
other apps are using the db.
regards
Mark
On 12/07/17 00:46, Charles Nadeau wrote:
> After reducing random_page_cost to 4 and testing more, I can report
> that the aggregate read throughput for parallel sequential scan is
> about 90MB/s. However the throughput for sequential scan is still
> around 4MB/s.
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Charles Nadeau | 2017-07-12 07:21:09 | Re: Very poor read performance, query independent |
Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2017-07-12 01:03:12 | Re: Very poor read performance, query independent |