X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BA56D9AF1; Mon, 3 Oct 2005 18:28:38 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 38967-08; Mon, 3 Oct 2005 21:28:33 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.Mi8.com (d01gw01.mi8.com [63.240.6.47]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F2E4D9A9F; Mon, 3 Oct 2005 18:28:31 -0300 (ADT) Received: from 172.16.1.118 by mail.Mi8.com with ESMTP (- Welcome to Mi8 Corporation www.Mi8.com (D1)); Mon, 03 Oct 2005 17:28:12 -0400 X-Server-Uuid: 241911D6-425B-44B9-A073-E3FE0F8FC774 Received: from MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com ([172.16.1.175]) by d01smtp03.Mi8.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 3 Oct 2005 17:28:12 -0400 Received: from 67.103.45.218 ([67.103.45.218]) by MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com ( [172.16.1.219]) via Exchange Front-End Server mi8owa.mi8.com ( [172.16.1.104]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Mon, 3 Oct 2005 17:28:12 -0500 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.0.050811 Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 14:28:12 -0700 Subject: Re: [HACKERS] A Better External Sort? From: "Luke Lonergan" To: "Josh Berkus" , "Jeffrey W. Baker" Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, "Michael Stone" , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] A Better External Sort? Thread-Index: AcXIYVtamc5sWDRUEdq40gANk63kWA== In-Reply-To: <200510031416.15620.josh@agliodbs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Oct 2005 21:28:12.0590 (UTC) FILETIME=[5BB504E0:01C5C861] X-WSS-ID: 6F5F7DE64JK160780-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.574 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.007, FORGED_RCVD_HELO=0.05, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=1.531] X-Spam-Level: * X-Archive-Number: 200510/29 X-Sequence-Number: 14797 Jeff, Josh, On 10/3/05 2:16 PM, "Josh Berkus" wrote: > Jeff, > >>> Nope, LOTS of testing, at OSDL, GreenPlum and Sun. For comparison, A >>> Big-Name Proprietary Database doesn't get much more than that either. >> >> I find this claim very suspicious. I get single-threaded reads in >> excess of 1GB/sec with XFS and > 250MB/sec with ext3. > > Database reads? Or raw FS reads? It's not the same thing. > > Also, we're talking *write speed* here, not read speed. I think you are both talking past each other here. I'll state what I *think* each of you are saying: Josh: single threaded DB writes are limited to 25MB/s My opinion: Not if they're done better than they are now in PostgreSQL. PostgreSQL COPY is still CPU limited at 12MB/s on a super fast Opteron. The combination of WAL and head writes while this is the case is about 50MB/s, which is far from the limit of the filesystems we test on that routinely perform at 250MB/s on ext2 writing in sequential 8k blocks. There is no reason that we couldn't do triple the current COPY speed by reducing the CPU overhead in parsing and attribute conversion. We've talked this to death, and implemented much of the code to fix it, but there's much more to do. Jeff: Plenty of FS bandwidth to be had on Linux, observed 250MB/s on ext3 and 1,000MB/s on XFS. Wow - can you provide a link or the results from the XFS test? Is this 8k blocksize sequential I/O? How many spindles and what controller are you using? Inquiring minds want to know... - Luke