| From: | Raj <rajeshkumar(dot)dba09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Frank Heikens <frank(at)elevarq(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Low TPS |
| Date: | 2026-06-05 04:44:37 |
| Message-ID: | CAJk5AtZ8P2TqJL+_Nw-TzvY2Nc+wAufA7TRGNQEB_3DK2je_dw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Cache hir ratio is 74. When I checked there were only couple of big
partition tables have less cache hit ratio
On Fri, 5 Jun 2026, 09:17 Raj, <rajeshkumar(dot)dba09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Postgres 17.9
> VM
> Pgnouncer
> Mixed workload
>
> Disk utlization means - IO or pgdats is increasing?
>
>
> On Thu, 4 Jun 2026, 09:48 Frank Heikens, <frank(at)elevarq(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> At the moment there isn’t enough information to determine whether
>> PostgreSQL is the bottleneck.
>>
>> A throughput of 60 TPS by itself does not tell us much. The limitation
>> could be in the application, connection pool, network, database, storage
>> subsystem, external services, or even the load test setup itself.
>>
>> Could you provide some additional information?
>>
>> * PostgreSQL version
>> * Deployment type (bare metal, VM, AWS RDS, Azure, etc.)
>> * Number of application instances
>> * Connection pool being used (PgBouncer, HikariCP, etc.)
>> * Average response time during the test
>> * Number of active database connections
>> * CPU, memory, and disk utilization during the test
>> * Top queries from pg_stat_statements
>> * Wait events observed during the test
>> * Whether the workload is read-heavy, write-heavy, or mixed
>>
>> From the database side, I would monitor at least:
>>
>> * CPU utilization
>> * Memory utilization
>> * I/O throughput and latency
>> * Active sessions (pg_stat_activity)
>> * Wait events
>> * Transactions per second
>> * Cache hit ratio
>> * Checkpoint activity
>> * WAL generation rate
>> * Query execution times (pg_stat_statements)
>> * Lock contention
>> * Replication lag (if applicable)
>>
>> Without these metrics, it is impossible to determine whether PostgreSQL
>> is actually limiting throughput or whether the bottleneck is elsewhere.
>>
>> Could you share the above information and some monitoring graphs from the
>> load test?
>>
>> Frank
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 3, 2026, at 9:11 PM, Raj <rajeshkumar(dot)dba09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > If the application teams they are able achive only 60TPS and this is
>> not expected. They are calculating based on total suçcess requests/minutes
>> we ran load test*60.
>> >
>> > From Database side what we can do and during.load test what are all.the
>> metric we need to monitor from our side. Vcpu 32, 128GB RAM
>>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Raj | 2026-06-05 04:45:46 | Re: Low TPS |
| Previous Message | Raj | 2026-06-05 03:47:53 | Re: Low TPS |