What happens if, say at iteration 6000 (a bit after the mess starts), you
pause it for a few minutes and resume. Will it restart with a plateau like
at the beginning of the test ? or not ?
What if, during this pause, you disconnect and reconnect, or restart the
postmaster, or vacuum, or analyze ?
> On 7/18/05, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> > The table has 15 columns, 5 indexes (character, inet and timestamp).
>> > No foreign keys. The only other thing running on the machine was the
>> > application actually DOING the benchmarking, written in Python
>> > (psycopg), but it was, according to top, using less than 1% of the
>> > CPU. It was just talking through a pipe to a psql prompt to do the
>> > COPY.
>> Sounds pretty plain-vanilla all right.
>> Are you in a position to try the same benchmark against CVS tip?
>> (The nightly snapshot tarball would be plenty close enough.) I'm
>> just wondering if the old bgwriter behavior of locking down the
>> bufmgr while it examined the ARC/2Q data structures is causing this...
> It looks like the CVS HEAD is definately "better," but not by a huge
> amount. The only difference is I wasn't run autovacuum in the
> background (default settings), but I don't think this explains it.
> Here's a graph of the differences and density of behavior:
> I can provide the raw data. Each COPY was 500 rows. Note that fsync
> is turned off here. Maybe it'd be more stable with it turned on?
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Christopher Petrilli||Date: 2005-07-19 15:44:00|
|Subject: Re: Impact of checkpoint_segments under continual load conditions|
|Previous:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2005-07-19 15:23:18|
|Subject: Re: COPY FROM performance improvements|