From: David Kerr <dmk@mr-paradox.net>
To: Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>
Cc: Nikolas Everett <nik9000@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 13:39:19 -0700
Message-ID: <20100420203919.GA62103@mr-paradox.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4BCE0E0C.1020903@2ndquadrant.com>
References: <20100420173936.GA50886@mr-paradox.net>
<h2w603c8f071004201044tbc8ce8fenb846b7643a2b9376@mail.gmail.com>
<20100420180351.GA51940@mr-paradox.net>
<w2ld4e11e981004201112v3571f350zaaa0112d1e035097@mail.gmail.com>
<20100420182030.GA53489@mr-paradox.net>
<j2qdcc563d11004201123u21219445v4a9129ee7d7b520b@mail.gmail.com>
<20100420182832.GB53489@mr-paradox.net>
<4BCE0E0C.1020903@2ndquadrant.com>
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 04:26:52PM -0400, Greg Smith wrote:
- David Kerr wrote:
- >the db, xlog and logs are all on separate areas of the SAN.
- >separate I/O controllers, etc on the SAN. it's setup well, I wouldn't
- >expect
- >contention there.
- >
-
- Just because you don't expect it doesn't mean it's not there.
- Particularly something as complicated as a SAN setup, presuming anything
- without actually benchmarking it is a recipe for fuzzy diagnostics when
- problems pop up. If you took anyone's word that your SAN has good
- performance without confirming it yourself, that's a path that's lead
- many to trouble.
that's actually what I'm doing, performance testing this environment.
everything's on the table for me at this point.
- Anyway, as Robert already stated, effective_cache_size only impacts how
- some very specific types of queries are executed; that's it. If there's
- some sort of query behavior involved in your load, maybe that has
- something to do with your slowdown, but it doesn't explain general slow
- performance. Other possibilities include that something else changed
- when you reloaded the server as part of that, or it's a complete
- coincidence--perhaps autoanalyze happened to finish at around the same
- time and it lead to new plans.
Ok that's good to know. I didn't think it would have any impact, and was
surprised when it appeared to.
I just finished running the test on another machine and wasn't able to
reproduce the problem, so that's good news in some ways. But now i'm back
to the drawing board.
I don't think it's anything in the Db that's causing it. ( drop and re-create
the db between tests) I actually suspect a hardware issue somewhere.
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, greg@2ndquadrant.com, scott.marlowe@gmail.com, nik9000@gmail.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?
In-Reply-To: <20100420203919.GA62103@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