I'm putting 8.0 through its paces and here are a few
things I've noticed on the native win32 port running
on my workstation (2.0g p4 w/256 megs of ram).
Here is the output of "vacuum verbose item":
INFO: vacuuming "public.item"
INFO: "item": removed 246381 row versions in 24044
DETAIL: CPU -1.-1612s/-1.99u sec elapsed 1434.79 sec.
INFO: "item": found 246381 removable, 492935
nonremovable row versions in 50413 pages
DETAIL: 0 dead row versions cannot be removed yet.
There were 100991 unused item pointers.
0 pages are entirely empty.
CPU 1081264882.-821s/0.02u sec elapsed 1682.87 sec.
Query returned successfully with no result in 1683460
As you can see the cpu statistics are obviously bogus
although the elasped time is correct.
My other concern is the length of time that vacuum
runs when cost based vacuuming is disabled.
Under 8.0, if I run an update statement (update item
where set cost = cost + 0 where country = 'US' [causes
an update w/o really changing data]) that updates half
the rows in the table (~250k out of 500k - average
tuple width is about 500 bytes) and then execute a
regular vacuum it takes approximately 1400 seconds to
complete. A vacuum full performed immediately after
takes on the order of 2000 seconds to complete.
During the update, I see anywhere from 5 to 10 meg/s
of disk transfer, an average disk queue length of 1-2
and a relatively large number of split I/O operations
per second (as reported via performance monitor).
However, during vacuum and vacuum full (once they
begin in earnest) I see less than 1 meg/s of disk
transfer, an average disk queue length of less than 1
and a virtually no split I/O operations per second.
With the same table data loaded under 7.4.x on cygwin
it takes approximately 100 seconds to complete the
vacuum after the same update. A vacuum full run
immediately afterwards on the table takes around 250
seconds to complete.
During the update, vacuum and vacuum full I see
anywhere from 5 to 10 meg/s of disk transfer, an
average disk queue length of 1-2 and a relatively
large number of split I/O operations per second (as
reported via performance monitor).
In both cases, cpu usage is nil and the 7.4.x and 8.0
.conf files are virtually indentical. Can anyone
offer an explanation as to why I'm seeing such a huge
performance difference in vacuum between 7.4.x and
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
pgsql-hackers-win32 by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2004-08-19 16:32:38|
|Subject: Re: tablespace and sequences?|
|Previous:||From: Yuri B. Lukyanov||Date: 2004-08-19 14:50:07|
|Subject: postgres does not start after reboot|
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2004-08-19 15:44:35|
|Subject: Re: libpq: passwords WAS: scripting & psql issues |
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2004-08-19 15:32:22|
|Subject: Re: Pass parameters to SQL script |