From: Guillaume Smet <guillaume.smet@gmail.com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Cc: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>
Subject: Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 16:41:24 +0100
Message-ID: <1d4e0c10712260741w1f141fd6x2f482143d526ad48@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1198668065.4221.288.camel@ebony.site>
References: <1d4e0c10712251606q6f9503deye3da4b68c51bf5e@mail.gmail.com>
<1198668065.4221.288.camel@ebony.site>
On Dec 26, 2007 12:21 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> bgwriter_lru_maxpages = 0
>
> So we can see if the bgwriter has any hand in this?
It doesn't change the behaviour I have.
It's not checkpointing either as using pgbench-tools, I can see that
tps and latency are quite stable during the entire run. Btw, thanks
Greg for these nice tools.
I thought it may be some sort of lock contention so I made a few tests
with -N but I have the same behaviour.
Then I decided to perform read-only tests using -S option (pgbench -S
-s 100 -c 16 -t 30000 -U postgres bench). And still the same
behaviour:
shared_buffers=64MB : 20k tps
shared_buffers=1024MB : 8k tps
Any other idea?
--
Guillaume
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: guillaume.smet@gmail.com, simon@2ndquadrant.com, stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc
Subject: Re: More shared buffers causes lower performances
In-Reply-To: <1d4e0c10712260741w1f141fd6x2f482143d526ad48@mail.gmail.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