Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Slow updates, poor IO

From: John Huttley <John(at)mib-infotech(dot)co(dot)nz>
To: Dan Langille <dan(at)langille(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Slow updates, poor IO
Date: 2008-09-29 03:47:09
Message-ID: 48E04FBD.9030304@mib-infotech.co.nz (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
I've canned the db and got rid my of data.
I'm in the midst of doing some other benchmarking for a possible change 
to the bacula database.

Loading up 1M records into a table of 60M records complete with indexes.
It's still going...

--john


Dan Langille wrote:
>
> On Sep 28, 2008, at 10:01 PM, John Huttley wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Greg Smith wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008, John Huttley wrote:
>>>
>>>> checkpoint _segments=16 is fine, going to 64 made no improvement.
>>>
>>> You might find that it does *after* increasing shared_buffers.  If 
>>> the buffer cache is really small, the checkpoints can't have very 
>>> much work to do, so their impact on performance is smaller.  Once 
>>> you've got a couple of hundred MB on there, the per-checkpoint 
>>> overhead can be considerable.
>>>
>> Ahh bugger, I've just trashed my test setup.
>
> Pardon?  How did you do that?
>

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Scott MarloweDate: 2008-09-29 04:12:18
Subject: Re: Slow updates, poor IO
Previous:From: Dan LangilleDate: 2008-09-29 03:41:03
Subject: Re: Slow updates, poor IO

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group