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

Re: Reason for PG being seemingly I/O bound?

From: Harshad RJ <harshad(dot)rj(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-novice(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Reason for PG being seemingly I/O bound?
Date: 2009-09-14 04:34:22
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-novice
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 12:45 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Harshad <harshad(dot)rj(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Did you watch "vmstat 1" or something
> similar to confirm that a lot of I/O is really happening?

No, I hadn't confirmed; I was just guessing, because I thought the CPU
utilisation was low. It turns out I was wrong in measuring the CPU
utilisation (forgot about system utilisation); and vmstat confirms that
there isn't any block i/o happening.

(PS. That's an incredibly useful command. Thanks! I was using 'grep' on
/proc/vmstat and it was cumbersome)

> However I still don't see how it would be I/O bound; the kernel
> certainly ought to have everything needed in disk cache after a couple
> of cycles.  On my machine a similar test immediately pins the CPU
> with about half user, half system time.

I hadn't noted down the system utilisation (sorry). My net CPU utilisation
(user + system) is about  50%, but it's a dual core system, so it is not all
that bad.

The CPU utilisation on my production server is lower, but I will
test/research further before asking questions here.

thanks & sorry for the false alarm,
Harshad RJ

In response to

pgsql-novice by date

Next:From: John DeSoiDate: 2009-09-14 13:54:04
Subject: Re: type conversion
Previous:From: Tim BowdenDate: 2009-09-14 04:24:32
Subject: Re: qualified names

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