From: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | David Kerr <dmk(at)mr-paradox(dot)net> |
Cc: | Nikolas Everett <nik9000(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance? |
Date: | 2010-04-20 18:23:51 |
Message-ID: | j2qdcc563d11004201123u21219445v4a9129ee7d7b520b@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 12:20 PM, David Kerr <dmk(at)mr-paradox(dot)net> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 02:12:15PM -0400, Nikolas Everett wrote:
> - On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 2:03 PM, David Kerr <dmk(at)mr-paradox(dot)net> wrote:
> -
> - > that thought occured to me while I was testing this. I ran a vacuumdb -z
> - > on my database during the load and it didn't impact performance at all.
> - >
> - > Incidentally the code is written to work like this :
> - >
> - > while (read X lines in file){
> - > Process those lines.
> - > write lines to DB.
> - > }
> - >
> - > So i would generally expect to get the benefits of the updated staticis
> - > once the loop ended. no? (would prepared statements affect that possibly?)
> - >
> - > Also, while I was debugging the problem, I did load a 2nd file into the DB
> - > ontop of one that had been loaded. So the statistics almost certinaly
> - > should
> - > have been decent at that point.
> - >
> - > I did turn on log_min_duration_statement but that caused performance to be
> - > unbearable,
> - > but i could turn it on again if it would help.
> - >
> - > Dave
> -
> -
> - You can absolutely use copy if you like but you need to use a non-standard
> - jdbc driver: kato.iki.fi/sw/db/postgresql/jdbc/copy/. I've used it in the
> - past and it worked.
> -
> - Is the whole thing going in in one transaction? I'm reasonably sure
> - statistics aren't kept for uncommited transactions.
> -
> - For inserts the prepared statements can only help. For selects they can
> - hurt because eventually the JDBC driver will turn them into back end
> - prepared statements that are only planned once. The price here is that that
> - plan may not be the best plan for the data that you throw at it.
> -
> - What was log_min_duration_statement logging that it killed performance?
> -
> - --Nik
>
> Good to know about the jdbc-copy. but this is a huge project and the load is
> just one very very tiny component, I don't think we could introduce anything
> new to assist that.
>
> It's not all in one tx. I don't have visibility to the code to determine how
> it's broken down, but most likely each while loop is a tx.
>
> I set it to log all statements (i.e., = 0.). that doubled the load time from
> ~15 to ~30 hours. I could, of course, be more granular if it would be helpful.
So are you logging to the same drive that has pg_xlog and your
data/base directory on this machine?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Kerr | 2010-04-20 18:28:32 | Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance? |
Previous Message | David Kerr | 2010-04-20 18:20:30 | Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance? |