From: | "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Ron Peacetree" <rjpeace(at)earthlink(dot)net>, "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort? |
Date: | 2005-09-30 20:38:54 |
Message-ID: | BF62F06E.10617%llonergan@greenplum.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Ron,
On 9/30/05 1:20 PM, "Ron Peacetree" <rjpeace(at)earthlink(dot)net> wrote:
> That 11MBps was your =bulk load= speed. If just loading a table
> is this slow, then there are issues with basic physical IO, not just
> IO during sort operations.
Bulk loading speed is irrelevant here - that is dominated by parsing, which
we have covered copiously (har har) previously and have sped up by 500%,
which still makes Postgres < 1/2 the loading speed of MySQL.
> As I said, the obvious candidates are inefficient physical layout
> and/or flawed IO code.
Yes.
> Until the basic IO issues are addressed, we could replace the
> present sorting code with infinitely fast sorting code and we'd
> still be scrod performance wise.
Postgres' I/O path has many problems that must be micro-optimized away. Too
small of an operand size compared to disk caches, memory, etc etc are the
common problem. Another is lack of micro-parallelism (loops) with long
enough runs to let modern processors pipeline and superscale.
The net problem here is that a simple "select blah from blee order
by(blah.a);" runs at 1/100 of the sequential scan rate.
- Luke
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2005-09-30 20:40:48 | Re: FW: PGBuildfarm member snake Branch HEAD Status changed from OK to Contrib failure |
Previous Message | Jignesh K. Shah | 2005-09-30 20:38:00 | Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2005-09-30 20:41:22 | Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort? |
Previous Message | Jignesh K. Shah | 2005-09-30 20:38:00 | Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort? |