From: Andy Colson <andy@squeakycode.net>
To: grant@amadensor.com
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Fun little performance IMPROVEMENT...
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 12:29:15 -0600
Message-ID: <4D39D07B.1070802@squeakycode.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <fb95011e666ffd6528d0b57542d7097f.squirrel@grant.boldlygoingnowhere.org>
References: <fb95011e666ffd6528d0b57542d7097f.squirrel@grant.boldlygoingnowhere.org>
On 1/21/2011 12:12 PM, grant@amadensor.com wrote:
> I was doing a little testing to see how machine load affected the
> performance of different types of queries, index range scans, hash joins,
> full scans, a mix, etc.
>
> In order to do this, I isolated different performance hits, spinning only
> CPU, loading the disk to create high I/O wait states, and using most of
> the physical memory. This was on a 4 CPU Xen virtual machine running
> 8.1.22 on CENTOS.
>
>
> Here is the fun part. When running 8 threads spinning calculating square
> roots (using the stress package), the full scan returned consistently 60%
> faster than the machine with no load. It was returning 44,000 out of
> 5,000,000 rows. Here is the explain analyze. I am hoping that this
> triggers something (I can run more tests as needed) that can help us make
> it always better.
>
> Idling:
> QUERY PLAN
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Seq Scan on schedule_details (cost=0.00..219437.90 rows=81386 width=187)
> (actual time=0.053..2915.966 rows=44320 loops=1)
> Filter: (schedule_type = '5X'::bpchar)
> Total runtime: 2986.764 ms
>
> Loaded:
> QUERY PLAN
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Seq Scan on schedule_details (cost=0.00..219437.90 rows=81386 width=187)
> (actual time=0.034..1698.068 rows=44320 loops=1)
> Filter: (schedule_type = '5X'::bpchar)
> Total runtime: 1733.084 ms
>
Odd. Did'ja by chance run the select more than once... maybe three or
four times, and always get the same (or close) results?
Is the stress package running niced?
-Andy
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: andy@squeakycode.net, grant@amadensor.com
Subject: Re: Fun little performance IMPROVEMENT...
In-Reply-To: <4D39D07B.1070802@squeakycode.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