From: David Kerr <dmk@mr-paradox.net>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 10:39:36 -0700
Message-ID: <20100420173936.GA50886@mr-paradox.net> (raw)
Howdy all,
I've got a huge server running just postgres. It's got 48 cores and 256GB of ram. Redhat 5.4, Postgres 8.3.9.
64bit OS. No users currently.
I've got a J2EE app that loads data into the DB, it's got logic behind it so it's not a simple bulk load, so
i don't think we can use copy.
Based on the tuning guides, it set my effective_cache_size to 128GB (1/2 the available memory) on the box.
When I ran my load, it took aproximately 15 hours to do load 20 million records. I thought this was odd because
on a much smaller machine I was able to do that same amount of records in 6 hours.
My initial thought was hardware issues so we got sar, vmstat, etc all running on the box and they didn't give
any indication that we had resource issues.
So I decided to just make the 2 PG config files look the same. (the only change was dropping effective_cache_size
from 128GB to 2GB).
Now the large box performs the same as the smaller box. (which is fine).
incidentally, both tests were starting from a blank database.
Is this expected?
Thanks!
Dave
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: dmk@mr-paradox.net
Subject: Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?
In-Reply-To: <20100420173936.GA50886@mr-paradox.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