Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5A8C6326BE for ; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 14:42:04 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 61094-05 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 17:41:43 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from spinlock.commandprompt.com (host-215.commandprompt.net [207.173.203.215]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 325FD633128 for ; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 14:41:54 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spinlock.commandprompt.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E63F348044; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 10:41:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from spinlock.commandprompt.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (spinlock.commandprompt.com.commandprompt.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HL5In2KYKCaY; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 10:41:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (unknown [75.142.159.62]) by spinlock.commandprompt.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ECB90348035; Tue, 20 Apr 2010 10:41:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance? From: "Joshua D. Drake" Reply-To: jd@commandprompt.com To: David Kerr Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <20100420173936.GA50886@mr-paradox.net> References: <20100420173936.GA50886@mr-paradox.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Organization: Command Prompt, Inc. Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 10:41:36 -0700 Message-ID: <1271785296.25602.8.camel@jd-desktop.unknown.charter.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.859 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=AWL=0.041, BAYES_00=-1.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201004/242 X-Sequence-Number: 38492 On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 10:39 -0700, David Kerr wrote: > Howdy all, > > I've got a huge server running just postgres. It's got 48 cores and 256GB of ram. Redhat 5.4, Postgres 8.3.9. > 64bit OS. No users currently. > > I've got a J2EE app that loads data into the DB, it's got logic behind it so it's not a simple bulk load, so > i don't think we can use copy. > > Based on the tuning guides, it set my effective_cache_size to 128GB (1/2 the available memory) on the box. > > When I ran my load, it took aproximately 15 hours to do load 20 million records. I thought this was odd because > on a much smaller machine I was able to do that same amount of records in 6 hours. > > My initial thought was hardware issues so we got sar, vmstat, etc all running on the box and they didn't give > any indication that we had resource issues. > > So I decided to just make the 2 PG config files look the same. (the only change was dropping effective_cache_size > from 128GB to 2GB). > > Now the large box performs the same as the smaller box. (which is fine). > > incidentally, both tests were starting from a blank database. > > Is this expected? Without a more complete picture of the configuration, this post doesn't mean a whole lot. Further, effective_cash_size is not likely to effect a bulk load at all. Joshua D. Drake > > Thanks! > > Dave > -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering