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

Re: High update activity, PostgreSQL vs BigDBMS

From: Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>
To: Guy Rouillier <guyr-ml1(at)burntmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: High update activity, PostgreSQL vs BigDBMS
Date: 2006-12-28 12:38:04
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance

Did you tune postgresql ? How much memory does the box have? Have you  
tuned postgresql ?

On 28-Dec-06, at 12:46 AM, Guy Rouillier wrote:

> I don't want to violate any license agreement by discussing  
> performance, so I'll refer to a large, commercial PostgreSQL- 
> compatible DBMS only as BigDBMS here.
> I'm trying to convince my employer to replace BigDBMS with  
> PostgreSQL for at least some of our Java applications.  As a proof  
> of concept, I started with a high-volume (but conceptually simple)  
> network data collection application.  This application collects  
> files of 5-minute usage statistics from our network devices, and  
> stores a raw form of these stats into one table and a normalized  
> form into a second table. We are currently storing about 12 million  
> rows a day in the normalized table, and each month we start new  
> tables.  For the normalized data, the app inserts rows initialized  
> to zero for the entire current day first thing in the morning, then  
> throughout the day as stats are received, executes updates against  
> existing rows.  So the app has very high update activity.
> In my test environment, I have a dual-x86 Linux platform running  
> the application, and an old 4-CPU Sun Enterprise 4500 running  
> BigDBMS and PostgreSQL 8.2.0 (only one at a time.)  The Sun box has  
> 4 disk arrays attached, each with 12 SCSI hard disks (a D1000 and 3  
> A1000, for those familiar with these devices.)  The arrays are set  
> up with RAID5.  So I'm working with a consistent hardware platform  
> for this comparison.  I'm only processing a small subset of files  
> (144.)
> BigDBMS processed this set of data in 20000 seconds, with all  
> foreign keys in place.  With all foreign keys in place, PG took  
> 54000 seconds to complete the same job.  I've tried various  
> approaches to autovacuum (none, 30-seconds) and it doesn't seem to  
> make much difference.  What does seem to make a difference is  
> eliminating all the foreign keys; in that configuration, PG takes  
> about 30000 seconds.  Better, but BigDBMS still has it beat  
> significantly.
> I've got PG configured so that that the system database is on disk  
> array 2, as are the transaction log files.  The default table space  
> for the test database is disk array 3.  I've got all the reference  
> tables (the tables to which the foreign keys in the stats tables  
> refer) on this array.  I also store the stats tables on this  
> array.  Finally, I put the indexes for the stats tables on disk  
> array 4.  I don't use disk array 1 because I believe it is a  
> software array.
> I'm out of ideas how to improve this picture any further.  I'd  
> appreciate some suggestions.  Thanks.
> -- 
> Guy Rouillier
> ---------------------------(end of  
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2006-12-28 13:19:44
Subject: Re: Advice on selecting good values for work_mem?
Previous:From: Shoaib MirDate: 2006-12-28 09:06:44
Subject: Re: High update activity, PostgreSQL vs BigDBMS

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group