Re: Very poor read performance, query independent

From: Charles Nadeau <charles(dot)nadeau(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz>, "pgsql-performa(dot)" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Very poor read performance, query independent
Date: 2017-07-16 09:22:00
Message-ID: CADFyZw7VbzXpwXzLayEiHspZQogSLknW16p2SG6cnhb_snNg_g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Scott,

The temp tablespace is on a disk of his own.
Thanks!

Charles

On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Charles Nadeau
> <charles(dot)nadeau(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > Mark,
> >
> > I increased the read ahead to 16384 and it doesn't improve performance.
> My
> > RAID 0 use a stripe size of 256k, the maximum size supported by the
> > controller.
>
> Are your queries still spilling to disk for sorts? If this is the
> case, and they're just too big to fit in memory, then you need to move
> your temp space, where sorts happen, onto another disk array that
> isn't your poor overworked raid-10 array. Contention between sorts and
> reads can kill performance quick, esp on spinning rust.
>

--
Charles Nadeau Ph.D.
http://charlesnadeau.blogspot.com/

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Charles Nadeau 2017-07-17 11:22:47 Re: Very poor read performance, query independent
Previous Message Charles Nadeau 2017-07-16 09:20:57 Re: Very poor read performance, query independent