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

Re: Impact of checkpoint_segments under continual load conditions

From: PFC <lists(at)boutiquenumerique(dot)com>
To: "Christopher Petrilli" <petrilli(at)gmail(dot)com>,"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Vivek Khera" <vivek(at)khera(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Impact of checkpoint_segments under continual load conditions
Date: 2005-07-19 15:33:21
Message-ID: op.st52tvunth1vuj@localhost (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
	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...
>
> Tom,
>
> 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:
>
> http://blog.amber.org/diagrams/pgsql_copy_803_cvs.png
>
> 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?
>
> Chris



In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Christopher PetrilliDate: 2005-07-19 15:44:00
Subject: Re: Impact of checkpoint_segments under continual load conditions
Previous:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2005-07-19 15:23:18
Subject: Re: COPY FROM performance improvements

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