On 06/10/2011 07:29 AM, Anibal David Acosta wrote:
> When 1 client connected postgres do 180 execution per second
> With 2 clients connected postgres do 110 execution per second
> With 3 clients connected postgres do 90 execution per second
> Finally with 6 connected clients postgres do 60 executions per second
> (totally 360 executions per second)
> While testing, I monitor disk, memory and CPU and not found any overload.
> I know that with this information you can figure out somethigns, but in
> normal conditions, Is normal the degradation of performance per connection
> when connections are incremented?
> Or should I spect 180 in the first and something similar in the second
> connection? Maybe 170?
Let's reformat this the way most people present it:
It's common for a single connection doing INSERT statements to hit a
bottleneck based on how fast the drives used can spin. That's anywhere
from 100 to 200 inserts/section, approximately, unless you have a
battery-backed write cache. See
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Reliable_Writes for more information.
However, multiple clients can commit at once when a backlog occurs. So
what you'll normally see in this situation is that the rate goes up
faster than this as clients are added. Here's a real sample, from a
server that's only physically capable of doing 120 commits/second on its
7200 RPM drive:
This is how it's supposed to scale even on basic hardware You didn't
explore this far enough to really know how well your scaling is working
here though. Since commit rates are limited by disk spin in this
situation, the situation for 1 to 5 clients is not really representative
of how a large number of clients will end up working. As already
mentioning, turning off synchronous_commit should give you an
interesting alternate set of numbers.
It's also possible there may be something wrong with whatever client
logic you are using here. Something about the way you've written it may
be acquiring a lock that blocks other clients from executing efficiently
for example. I'd suggest turning on log_lock_waits and setting
deadlock_timeout to a small number, which should show you some extra
logging in situations where people are waiting for locks. Running some
queries to look at the lock data such as the examples at
http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Lock_Monitoring might be helpful too.
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.us
"PostgreSQL 9.0 High Performance": http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Anibal David Acosta||Date: 2011-06-10 18:16:33|
|Subject: Re: how much postgres can scale up?|
|Previous:||From: Claudio Freire||Date: 2011-06-10 15:22:28|
|Subject: Re: strange query plan with LIMIT|