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

Re: a heavy duty operation on an "unused" table kills my server

From: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Andy Colson <andy(at)squeakycode(dot)net>
Cc: Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: a heavy duty operation on an "unused" table kills my server
Date: 2010-01-14 18:30:46
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
Andy Colson wrote:
> So if there is very little io, or if there is way way too much, then 
> the scheduler really doesn't matter.  So there is a slim middle ground 
> where the io is within a small percent of the HD capacity where the 
> scheduler might make a difference?

That's basically how I see it.  There seem to be people who run into 
workloads in the middle ground where the scheduler makes a world of 
difference.  I've never seen one myself, and suspect that some of the 
reports of deadline being a big improvement just relate to some buginess 
in the default CFQ implementation that I just haven't encountered.

Greg Smith    2ndQuadrant   Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Andreas KretschmerDate: 2010-01-14 18:31:39
Subject: Re: bad execution plan for subselects containingwindowing-function
Previous:From: Greg SmithDate: 2010-01-14 18:25:14
Subject: Re: Slow "Select count(*) ..." query on table with 60 Mio. rows

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