Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?

From: David Kerr <dmk(at)mr-paradox(dot)net>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?
Date: 2010-04-20 17:39:36
Message-ID: 20100420173936.GA50886@mr-paradox.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Howdy all,

I've got a huge server running just postgres. It's got 48 cores and 256GB of ram. Redhat 5.4, Postgres 8.3.9.
64bit OS. No users currently.

I've got a J2EE app that loads data into the DB, it's got logic behind it so it's not a simple bulk load, so
i don't think we can use copy.

Based on the tuning guides, it set my effective_cache_size to 128GB (1/2 the available memory) on the box.

When I ran my load, it took aproximately 15 hours to do load 20 million records. I thought this was odd because
on a much smaller machine I was able to do that same amount of records in 6 hours.

My initial thought was hardware issues so we got sar, vmstat, etc all running on the box and they didn't give
any indication that we had resource issues.

So I decided to just make the 2 PG config files look the same. (the only change was dropping effective_cache_size
from 128GB to 2GB).

Now the large box performs the same as the smaller box. (which is fine).

incidentally, both tests were starting from a blank database.

Is this expected?

Thanks!

Dave

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joshua D. Drake 2010-04-20 17:41:36 Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2010-04-20 16:32:40 Re: SOLVED ... Re: Getting rid of a cursor from JDBC .... Re: [PERFORM] Re: HELP: How to tame the 8.3.x JDBC driver with a biq guery result set