| From: | Pierre Frédéric Caillaud <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | "fkater(at)googlemail(dot)com" <fkater(at)googlemail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: Inserting 8MB bytea: just 25% of disk perf used? | 
| Date: | 2010-01-14 16:08:59 | 
| Message-ID: | op.u6i5s9eicke6l8@soyouz | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance | 
> However the harddisk (sata) could write 43 MB/s in the worst
> case! Why is write performance limited to 16 MB/s?
>
> Some more hints what I do:
>
> I use PQexecParams() and the INSERT ... $001 notation to NOT
> create a real escapted string from the data additionally but
> use a pointer to the 8MB data buffer.
>
> I altered the binary column to STORAGE EXTERNAL.
>
> Some experiments with postgresql.conf (fsync off,
> shared_buffers=1000MB, checkpoint_segments=256) did not
> change the 50s- much (somtimes 60s sometimes a little less).
>
> 4 Core CPU 3 Ghz, WinXP, 1 TB SATA disk.
Big CPU and slow disk...
	You should add another disk just for the WAL -- disks are pretty cheap  
these days.
	Writing the WAL on a second disk is the first thing to do on a  
configuration like yours, if you are limited by writes.
	It also reduces the fsync lag a lot since the disk is only doing WAL.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pierre Frédéric Caillaud | 2010-01-14 16:16:11 | Re: a heavy duty operation on an "unused" table kills my server | 
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2010-01-14 16:03:16 | Re: Slow "Select count(*) ..." query on table with 60 Mio. rows |