From: Bob Dusek <bob@copienttech.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: performance implications of binary placement
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 15:37:47 -0500
Message-ID: <1F3542D36E2E6C4780CDA3AC0102BF7006A807@mail01.copienttech.com> (raw)
Hello all,
I've been running performance tests on various incantations of Postgres
on/off for a month or so. And, I've just come across some unexpected
results.
When I start my Postgres build as such:
# (Scenario 1)
./configure --prefix=/usr --libdir=/usr/lib --bindir=/usr/bin
--includedir=/usr/include/pgsql --datadir=/usr/share/postgresql
--mandir=/usr/share/man --with-docdir=/usr/share/doc/packages
--disable-rpath --enable-thread-safety --enable-integer-datetimes
--without-python --without-perl --without-tcl --without-tk
It performs significantly worse than when I start my build like this:
# (Scenario 2)
./configure --disable-rpath --enable-thread-safety
--enable-integer-datetimes --without-python --without-perl --without-tcl
--without-tk
Note: the only differences are that "Scenario 1" includes these
options:
--prefix=/usr --libdir=/usr/lib --bindir=/usr/bin
--includedir=/usr/include/pgsql --datadir=/usr/share/postgresql
--mandir=/usr/share/man --with-docdir=/usr/share/doc/packages
And, to be clear, "Scenario 1" performs worse than "Scenario 2". Simple
insert statements are taking significantly longer.
I did not expect to see a performance hit with these options, especially
since "/usr/" on the test machine is mounted as its own partition, and
in both cases, all of the binaries, include files, etc. are in that
partition.
Has anyone seen this before? Are hard drive mechanics the only thing in
play here?
The only difference I'm seeing in logging between the two versions is
that Scenario 2 has several of this message littered throughout the
logfile:
ERROR: could not open relation "pg_index_indexrelid_index": No such file
or directory
But, that doesn't seem to be effecting functionality or performance
(especially considering the fact that the logfile that contains that
message is part of the test that is performing better).
We're using Postgres 7.4.8, building from the SLES9 Postgres 7.4.8
source rpm.
Thanks for any help you can provide. I can provide more detail if
needed.
Thanks again,
Bob
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: bob@copienttech.com
Subject: Re: performance implications of binary placement
In-Reply-To: <1F3542D36E2E6C4780CDA3AC0102BF7006A807@mail01.copienttech.com>
* 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