From: Yu-Ju Hong <yuru.hong@gmail.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: dbt2 performance
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2010 18:29:42 -0500
Message-ID: <516a4a601002251529y7d445a19w15750315db8b5bd8@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4B86FE2A.1030205@2ndquadrant.com>
References: <516a4a601002251323udcc2b41tf5a09b968bef3a7c@mail.gmail.com>
<4B86FE2A.1030205@2ndquadrant.com>
Thanks for the reply.
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 5:48 PM, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Yu-Ju Hong wrote:
>
>> 2. Moreover, the disk utilization was high and the "await" time from
>> iostat is around 500 ms. Could disk I/O limit the overall throughput? The
>> server has 2 SATA disks, one for system and postgresql and the other is
>> dedicated to logging (pg_xlog). As far as I understand, modern database
>> systems should be CPU-bound rather than I/O-bound, is it because I did not
>> perform adequate performance tuning?
>>
>
> dbt2 is almost exclusively disk I/O bound once the data set gets big
> enough. There are some applications where most of the data fits in RAM and
> therefore CPU performance is the limiter. dbt2 is exactly the opposite of
> such an application though, and the idea that "modern database systems
> should be CPU bound" is not really true at all. That's only the case if the
> data you're operating on fits in RAM. Otherwise, databases are just as I/O
> bound as they've always been. Main thing that's changed is there's a lot
> more RAM in systems nowadays.
>
In my test, there was almost no disk reads (mostly disk writes), so I
assumed the size of the database didn't cause the performance bottleneck.
Maybe I was wrong. If so, should I increase shared_buffer?
Assuming that dbt2 was limited by disk I/O in my experiments, do you think
the numbers I got with my server configuration are reasonable?
Also, would you mind giving some examples where the applications are CPU
bound? That could be useful information to me.
>
> By the way: a large increase in checkpoint_segments is the first thing you
> should do. If you check the database logs, they're probably filled with
> complaints about it being too low. 32 would be a useful starting value,
> going much higher for a test that's only 10 minutes long is probably
> cheating.
>
>
I increased the checkpoint_segments to 10 when I ran the tests. I'll
certainly increase it to 32 and give it a try.
> --
> Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD
> PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
> greg@2ndQuadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.us <http://www.2ndquadrant.us/;
>
>
Thanks,
Yu-Ju
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: yuru.hong@gmail.com
Subject: Re: dbt2 performance
In-Reply-To: <516a4a601002251529y7d445a19w15750315db8b5bd8@mail.gmail.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