pg.ddx.io  pgsql-performance@postgresql.org mailing list archive  
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Chris Travers <chris@metatrontech.com>
To: Andre Felipe Machado <andremachado@techforce.com.br>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: firebird X postgresql 8.1.2 windows, performance comparison
Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 22:14:15 -0800
Message-ID: <44126AB7.6060709@metatrontech.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1142041197.7572.6.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20060307162842.M37264@techforce.com.br>
	<1142041197.7572.6.camel@localhost.localdomain>

Andre Felipe Machado wrote:

>Postgresql uses around 30% cpu and hard disk heavily (not so as vacuum)
>at all executions.
>Firebird uses around 40% cpu and hard disk heavily at the first
>execution.
>The second execution uses around 60% cpu and **NO** disk activity.
>
>The previously cited query running at 26 miliseconds down from 10
>minutes, can achieve this performance at the second run, with **NO**
>disk activity.
>At the first run it uses 1,7 seconds, down from 10 minutes.
>
>The hard disk is clearly a bottleneck.
>1,7 seconds against 26 miliseconds.
>
>
>So,
>How "convince" postgresql to use windows disk cache or to read all
>indexes to ram?
>It seems that effective_cache_size does not tell postgresql to actually
>use windows disk cache.
>What parameter must be configured?
>Do you have some suggestions?
>  
>
Assuming these are selects and that you have already vacuumed, etc.

Look at memory useage.  It seems likely that you have a difference in 
caching behavior.  PostgreSQL has its own cache, and failing that will 
use the OS disk cache.  So there may be a number of possible issues 
involved including whether the data is staying in the OS cache, how much 
memory is being used for caching, etc.  It is also likely that the 
Windows version of PostgreSQL may have some issues in these areas that 
the UNIX/Linux versions may not simply because it is more immature.

You might even try a vacuum full to retrieve space.  This may mean 
smaller tables, more likely to remain in disk cache, etc.  But that 
would not provide any indication of scalability.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Metatron Technology Consulting

Attachments:

chris.vcf (text/x-vcard, 169B) download begin:vcard fn:Chris Travers n:Travers;Chris email;internet:chris@metatrontech.com tel;work:509-888-0220 tel;cell:509-630-9974 x-mozilla-html:FALSE version:2.1 end:vcard

view thread (23+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <44126AB7.6060709@metatrontech.com>
Permalink:  ../44126AB7.6060709@metatrontech.com/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/44126AB7.6060709@metatrontech.com

 · 

reply

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: chris@metatrontech.com, andremachado@techforce.com.br
  Subject: Re: firebird X postgresql 8.1.2 windows, performance comparison
  In-Reply-To: <44126AB7.6060709@metatrontech.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