Message-ID: <541B3341.9090406@dunslane.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2014 15:32:17 -0400
From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Mkrtchyan, Tigran" <tigran.mkrtchyan@desy.de>
CC: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: postgres 9.3 vs. 9.4
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>
In-Reply-To: <1743190394.45544.1411067364145.JavaMail.zimbra@desy.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-performance-owner@postgresql.org


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