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/
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 |