From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Christopher Petrilli <petrilli@gmail.com>
Cc: Vivek Khera <vivek@khera.org>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Impact of checkpoint_segments under continual load conditions
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2005 15:32:36 -0400
Message-ID: <16394.1121715156@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <59d991c405071811457ccdd3f1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <59d991c4050717100874c08a86@mail.gmail.com>
<A50B8A1F-71A1-4F63-A5F4-1AA58F89557D@khera.org>
<59d991c405071811457ccdd3f1@mail.gmail.com>
Christopher Petrilli <petrilli@gmail.com> writes:
> http://blog.amber.org/diagrams/comparison_mysql_pgsql.png> Notice the VERY steep drop off.
Hmm. Whatever that is, it's not checkpoint's fault. I would interpret
the regular upticks in the Postgres times (every several hundred
iterations) as being the effects of checkpoints. You could probably
smooth out those peaks some with appropriate hacking on bgwriter
parameters, but that's not the issue at hand (is it?).
I have no idea at all what's causing the sudden falloff in performance
after about 10000 iterations. COPY per se ought to be about a
constant-time operation, since APPEND is (or should be) constant-time.
What indexes, foreign keys, etc do you have on this table? What else
was going on at the time?
regards, tom lane
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: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, petrilli@gmail.com, vivek@khera.org
Subject: Re: Impact of checkpoint_segments under continual load conditions
In-Reply-To: <16394.1121715156@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* 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