pg.ddx.io  pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive  
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mkrtchyan, Tigran <tigran.mkrtchyan@desy.de>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org, Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Subject: Re: postgres 9.3 vs. 9.4
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 21:50:35 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <1364297042.45601.1411069835217.JavaMail.zimbra@z-mbx-2.desy.de> (raw)
List-Unsubscribe:  <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-performance>


On Sep 18, 2014 9:32 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
>
>
> On 09/18/2014 03:09 PM, Mkrtchyan, Tigran wrote: 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> >> From: "Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com> 
> >> To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org 
> >> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 7:54:24 PM 
> >> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] postgres 9.3 vs. 9.4 
> >> 
> >> On 09/18/2014 08:09 AM, Mkrtchyan, Tigran wrote: 
> >>>>> 9.4beta2: 
> >>>>> ... 
> >>>>> 
> >>>>>>>          0.957854        END; 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>> Looks like IO. 
> >>> Postgres internal IO? May be. We get 600MB/s on this SSDs. 
> >> While it's possible that this is a Postgres issue, my first thought is 
> >> that the two SSDs are not actually identical.  The 9.4 one may either 
> >> have a fault, or may be mostly full and heavily fragmented.  Or the Dell 
> >> PCIe card may have an issue. 
> > 
> > We have tested both SSDs and they have identical IO characteristics and 
> > as I already mentioned, both databases are fresh, including filesystem. 
> > 
> >> You are using "scale 1" which is a < 1MB database, and one client and 1 
> >> thread, which is an interesting test I wouldn't necessarily have done 
> >> myself.  I'll throw the same test on one of my machines and see how it does. 
> > this scenario corresponds to our use case. We need a high transaction rate 
> > per for a single client. Currently I can get only ~1500 tps. Unfortunately, 
> > posgtress does not tell me where the bottleneck is. Is this is defensively 
> > not the disk IO. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
>
>
> This is when you dig out tools like perf, maybe.

Do you have a better suggestions ?

>
> cheers 
>
> andrew 

-- 
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance


view thread (30+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <1364297042.45601.1411069835217.JavaMail.zimbra@z-mbx-2.desy.de>
Permalink:  ../1364297042.45601.1411069835217.JavaMail.zimbra@z-mbx-2.desy.de/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/1364297042.45601.1411069835217.JavaMail.zimbra@z-mbx-2.desy.de

 · 

reply

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
  Cc: tigran.mkrtchyan@desy.de, andrew@dunslane.net, josh@agliodbs.com
  Subject: Re: postgres 9.3 vs. 9.4
  In-Reply-To: <1364297042.45601.1411069835217.JavaMail.zimbra@z-mbx-2.desy.de>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox