From: Jim C. Nasby <jim@nasby.net>
To: Bob Dusek <bob@copienttech.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: performance implications of binary placement
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:01:15 -0600
Message-ID: <20070110200115.GP12217@nasby.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1F3542D36E2E6C4780CDA3AC0102BF7006A807@mail01.copienttech.com>
References: <1F3542D36E2E6C4780CDA3AC0102BF7006A807@mail01.copienttech.com>
Are you 100% certain that both builds are using all the same libraries?
And to be an apples-apples comparison, you really need to ensure that
the datadir is on the same filesystem in both cases (that's the first
thing I'd check).
Also, that pg_index... error sounds like the second build has been
corrupted.
On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 03:37:47PM -0500, Bob Dusek wrote:
> 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
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
--
Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
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: jim@nasby.net, bob@copienttech.com
Subject: Re: performance implications of binary placement
In-Reply-To: <20070110200115.GP12217@nasby.net>
* 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