Re: Migration study, step 1: bulk write performance

On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 15:17, Ron wrote:
> At 03:44 PM 3/21/2006, Simon Riggs wrote:
> >On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 15:59 +0100, Mikael Carneholm wrote:
> >
> > > This gives that 10Gb takes ~380s => ~27Mb/s (with fsync=off),
> > compared to the raw dd result (~75.5Mb/s).
> > >
> > > I assume this difference is due to:
> > > - simultaneous WAL write activity (assumed: for each byte written
> > to the table, at least one byte is also written to WAL, in effect:
> > 10Gb data inserted in the table equals 20Gb written to disk)
> > > - lousy test method (it is done using a function => the
> > transaction size is 10Gb, and 10Gb will *not* fit in wal_buffers :) )
> > > - poor config
> >
> > > checkpoint_segments = 3
> >
> >With those settings, you'll be checkpointing every 48 Mb, which will be
> >every about once per second. Since the checkpoint will take a reasonable
> >amount of time, even with fsync off, you'll be spending most of your
> >time checkpointing. bgwriter will just be slowing you down too because
> >you'll always have more clean buffers than you can use, since you have
> >132MB of shared_buffers, yet flushing all of them every checkpoint.
> IIRC, Josh Berkus did some benches that suggests in pg 8.x a value of
> 64 - 256 is best for checkpoint_segments as long as you have the RAM available.
>
> I'd suggest trying values of 64, 128, and 256 and setting
> checkpoint_segments to the best of those.

I've also found that modest increases in commit_siblings and
commit_delay help a lot on certain types of imports.