Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A7D41337B4E for ; Sat, 5 Feb 2011 04:50:21 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 06573-10 for ; Sat, 5 Feb 2011 08:50:15 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.171]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4BC41337B84 for ; Sat, 5 Feb 2011 04:50:13 -0400 (AST) Received: from [192.168.1.6] (mail.highperformancepostgresql.com [71.179.240.8]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mreu2) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0MH3DS-1PzRLj0ZVa-00EHGw; Sat, 05 Feb 2011 09:49:10 +0100 Message-ID: <4D4D0F01.6070407@2ndquadrant.com> Date: Sat, 05 Feb 2011 03:49:05 -0500 From: Greg Smith User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100317) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Scott Marlowe CC: Robert Haas , david@lang.hm, Vitalii Tymchyshyn , Kenneth Marshall , Jon Nelson , Andrew Dunstan , Bruce Momjian , Tom Lane , Craig Ringer , "pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Slow count(*) again... References: <4D499E55.4020107@vmsinfo.com> <4D4A7B69.2020704@gmail.com> <20110204143315.GA1261@aart.is.rice.edu> <4D4C0F66.1080507@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:fvUI39ldgwvdPiDEaoYORMNzgcczfRBMRDze3DNqmj2 OS2/UTWxJL3YKDDQPcenmiRHYJsX2g3Cz8Ka4AtAq8UGICR+fc JBuT3mCOurJ9IMB6UBEZsbAFXw+TvqymgG/4qsHc7knPXKzyUE Rrp81g5BbVpKoSBbrEsxX6w23qc3v2kWBixcZNTgkUZLnjFFd2 qLHpFO3efqsWJEyJMI7yzIlDYaFuuWcU7nWysUn9Bs= X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201102/243 X-Sequence-Number: 42381 Scott Marlowe wrote: > With a 24 drive RAID-10 array that can read at ~1GB/s I am almost > always CPU bound during copies. This isn't wholly bad as it leaves > spare IO for the rest of the machine so regular work carries on just > fine. > And you don't need nearly that much I/O bandwidth to reach that point. I've hit being CPU bound on COPY...FROM on systems with far less drives than 24. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US greg@2ndQuadrant.com Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.us "PostgreSQL 9.0 High Performance": http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books