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

Re: 8.4 open item: copy performance regression?

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Stefan Kaltenbrunner" <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 8.4 open item: copy performance regression?
Date: 2009-06-18 23:06:40
Message-ID: 4A3A82300200002500027DCD@gw.wicourts.gov (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote: 
 
> It'd be useful first off to figure out if it's a CPU or I/O issue.
> Is there any visible difference in vmstat output?  Also, try turning
> off autovacuum in both cases, just to see if that's related.
 
Both took slightly longer with autovacuum off, but probably just
within the noise.
 
It's hard to interpret the vmstat output, largely because I chose to
run this on one of our biggest servers, which is not currently serving
an application, per se, but as a replication target, and this being
"off hours" is busy running the sync process to the source machines. 
This involves generating md5 sums on both sides for blocks of rows,
which is pretty CPU-intensive.  There is very little disk output from
that right now, pretty light on the disk reads, but keeping a few CPUs
pretty busy generating those md5 sums.
 
I've got to go keep an appointment, but I'll come back and see if I
can do more.  For now, here's the raw vmstat, in case someone can pick
out info I'm missing:
 
-Kevin


Attachment: vmstat.txt
Description: text/plain (8.4 KB)

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2009-06-18 23:09:47
Subject: Re: [PATCH] backend: compare word-at-a-time in bcTruelen
Previous:From: Greg StarkDate: 2009-06-18 22:54:47
Subject: Re: [PATCH] backend: compare word-at-a-time in bcTruelen

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