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 203E4DB568 for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2005 15:02:27 -0400 (AST) 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 54036-08 for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2005 19:02:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from xproxy.gmail.com (xproxy.gmail.com [66.249.82.200]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69E79DB566 for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2005 15:02:25 -0400 (AST) Received: by xproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i30so1041347wxd for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2005 11:02:26 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=tgUC+f/aA4TSK54n3cm13WMgMmVTL0xVliRwQBJiaxvNiuplY7D+RpoD3Pa7TMXSra3PK829hxhdeI1UyvVwSPcsbBMBfaLKWIhAfar0o1mHrmDhQxucq9HDPNNfWg/6IcXS5CS1TeUps4BdbdaCpu8PRxG7xL2P6DZ5rQ6esN0= Received: by 10.64.233.6 with SMTP id f6mr431882qbh; Mon, 31 Oct 2005 11:02:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.64.151.6 with HTTP; Mon, 31 Oct 2005 11:02:26 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 20:02:26 +0100 From: Claus Guttesen To: Kelly Burkhart Subject: Re: 8.x index insert performance Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <1130778725.7026.33.camel@krb06.tradebot.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <1130778725.7026.33.camel@krb06.tradebot.com> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 required=5 tests=[none] X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200510/475 X-Sequence-Number: 15243 > We are running some performance tests in which we are attempting to > insert about 100,000,000 rows in a database at a sustained rate. About > 50M rows in, our performance drops dramatically. > > This test is with data that we believe to be close to what we will > encounter in production. However in tests with purely generated, > sequential data, we did not notice this slowdown. I'm trying to figure > out what patterns in the "real" data may be causing us problems. > > I have log,data and indexes on separate LUNs on an EMC SAN. Prior to > slowdown, each partition is writing at a consistent rate. Index > partition is reading at a much lower rate. At the time of slowdown, > index partition read rate increases, all write rates decrease. CPU > utilization drops. I'm doing some test-inserts (albeit with much fewer records) into 8.0.4 (on FreeBSD 6.0 RC1) and the import-time decreased three-fold when I increased the below mentioned values: shared_buffers =3D 8192 commit_delay =3D 100000 commit_siblings =3D 1000 When I increased shared_buffers the kernel needed minor tweaking. regards Claus