Re: Impact of checkpoint_segments under continual load conditions

From: Christopher Petrilli <petrilli(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Vivek Khera <vivek(at)khera(dot)org>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Impact of checkpoint_segments under continual load conditions
Date: 2005-07-18 18:45:35
Message-ID: 59d991c405071811457ccdd3f1@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On 7/18/05, Vivek Khera <vivek(at)khera(dot)org> wrote:
>
> On Jul 17, 2005, at 1:08 PM, Christopher Petrilli wrote:
>
> > Normally, checkpoint_segments can help absorb some of that, but my
> > experience is that if I crank the number up, it simply delays the
> > impact, and when it occurs, it takes a VERY long time (minutes) to
> > clear.
>
> There comes a point where your only recourse is to throw hardware at
> the problem. I would suspect that getting faster disks and splitting
> the checkpoint log to its own RAID partition would help you here.
> Adding more RAM while you're at it always does wonders for me :-)

My concern is less with absolute performance, than with the nosedive
it goes into. I published some of my earlier findings and comparisons
on my blog, but there's a graph here:

http://blog.amber.org/diagrams/comparison_mysql_pgsql.png

Notice the VERY steep drop off. I'm still trying to get rid of it,
but honestly, am not smart enough to know where it's originating. I
have no desire to ever use MySQL, but it is a reference point, and
since I don't particularly need transactional integrity, a valid
comparison.

Chris
--
| Christopher Petrilli
| petrilli(at)gmail(dot)com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dario 2005-07-18 19:24:19 Re: join and query planner
Previous Message Vivek Khera 2005-07-18 18:32:14 Re: Impact of checkpoint_segments under continual load conditions