From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
To: Mkrtchyan, Tigran <tigran.mkrtchyan@desy.de>
Cc: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: postgres 9.3 vs. 9.4
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 15:32:17 -0400
Message-ID: <541B3341.9090406@dunslane.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1743190394.45544.1411067364145.JavaMail.zimbra@desy.de>
References: <45142416.42827.1411033201079.JavaMail.zimbra@desy.de>
<88549888.42916.1411034301200.JavaMail.zimbra@desy.de>
<CAMkU=1zhg1pQrh7BfafTQUezbNkgy=s778UyssmNKX6xKDJ3sA@mail.gmail.com>
<747323809.44735.1411052960344.JavaMail.zimbra@desy.de>
<WM!27707af23572f10f4a1b6f93c057f6c947950eed3ebcde8af823b5389310aa1db2656588593b3477d00b4c741f6d9f6d!@asav-1.01.com>
<541B1C50.7010806@agliodbs.com>
<1743190394.45544.1411067364145.JavaMail.zimbra@desy.de>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-performance>
On 09/18/2014 03:09 PM, Mkrtchyan, Tigran wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com>
>> To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
>> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 7:54:24 PM
>> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] postgres 9.3 vs. 9.4
>>
>> On 09/18/2014 08:09 AM, Mkrtchyan, Tigran wrote:
>>>>> 9.4beta2:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> 0.957854 END;
>>>>>>>
>>>>> Looks like IO.
>>> Postgres internal IO? May be. We get 600MB/s on this SSDs.
>> While it's possible that this is a Postgres issue, my first thought is
>> that the two SSDs are not actually identical. The 9.4 one may either
>> have a fault, or may be mostly full and heavily fragmented. Or the Dell
>> PCIe card may have an issue.
>
> We have tested both SSDs and they have identical IO characteristics and
> as I already mentioned, both databases are fresh, including filesystem.
>
>> You are using "scale 1" which is a < 1MB database, and one client and 1
>> thread, which is an interesting test I wouldn't necessarily have done
>> myself. I'll throw the same test on one of my machines and see how it does.
> this scenario corresponds to our use case. We need a high transaction rate
> per for a single client. Currently I can get only ~1500 tps. Unfortunately,
> posgtress does not tell me where the bottleneck is. Is this is defensively
> not the disk IO.
>
>
>
This is when you dig out tools like perf, maybe.
cheers
andrew
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
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: andrew@dunslane.net, tigran.mkrtchyan@desy.de, josh@agliodbs.com
Subject: Re: postgres 9.3 vs. 9.4
In-Reply-To: <541B3341.9090406@dunslane.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