Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TeFLH-0001Ed-MC for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 01:24:35 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TeFLG-0000zc-Hl for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 01:24:34 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TeFLF-0000zW-PA for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 01:24:33 +0000 Received: from mailout-us.gmx.com ([74.208.5.67]) by magus.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1TeFLB-0003xX-5L for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Fri, 30 Nov 2012 01:24:33 +0000 Received: (qmail 31349 invoked by uid 0); 30 Nov 2012 01:24:27 -0000 Received: from 76.255.19.161 by rms-us008 with HTTP Cc: "Willem Leenen" ,pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 20:24:26 -0500 From: "Kevin Grittner" Message-ID: <20121130012426.69300@gmx.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Optimize update query To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?=22Niels_Kristian_Schj=F8dt=22?= ,sthomas@optionshouse.com X-Authenticated: #138763884 X-Flags: 0001 X-Mailer: GMX.com Web Mailer x-registered: 0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-GMX-UID: nW/KcHZ63zOlOQ09Lnwhl79+IGRvb0BA X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-performance Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org Niels Kristian Schjødt wrote: > Okay, now I'm done the updating as described above. I did the > postgres.conf changes. I did the kernel changes, i added two > SSD's in a software RAID1 where the pg_xlog is now located - > unfortunately the the picture is still the same :-( You said before that you were seeing high disk wait numbers. Now it is zero accourding to your disk utilization graph. That sounds like a change to me. > When the database is under "heavy" load, there is almost no > improvement to see in the performance compared to before the > changes. In client-visible response time and throughput, I assume, not resource usage numbers? > A lot of both read and writes takes more than a 1000 times as > long as they usually do, under "lighter" overall load. As an odd coincidence, you showed your max_connections setting to be 1000. http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Number_Of_Database_Connections -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance