From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: parametric block size? |
Date: | 2014-08-10 09:23:26 |
Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.10.1407291325180.12870@sto |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Andres,
> But further benchmarks sound like a good idea.
I've started running some benchmarks with pgbench, with varying block &
WAL block sizes. I've done a blog post on a small subset of results,
focussing on block size with SSDs and to validate the significance of the
figures found, see for more details:
http://blog.coelho.net/database/2014/08/08/postgresql-page-size-for-SSD/
I've also found an old post by Tomas Vondra who did really extensive
tests, including playing around with file system options:
http://www.fuzzy.cz/en/articles/ssd-benchmark-results-read-write-pgbench/
The cumulated and consistent result of all these tests, including
Hans-Jürgen Schönig short tests, is that reducing page size on SSDs
increases significantly pgbench reported performance, by about 10%.
I've also done some tests with HDDs which are quite disappointing, with
PostgreSQL running in batch mode: a few seconds at 1000 tps followed by a
catch-up phase of 20 seconds at about 0 (zero) tps, and back to a new
cycle. I'm not sure of which parameter to tweak (postgresql configuration,
linux io scheduler, ext4 options or possibly stay away from ext4) to get
something more stable.
--
Fabien.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2014-08-10 09:37:29 | Re: Minmax indexes |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2014-08-10 09:22:50 | Re: Minmax indexes |