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 C0D5CD6842
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Wed,  2 Nov 2005 05:32:55 -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 59306-06
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org>;
	Wed,  2 Nov 2005 09:32:53 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from floppy.pyrenet.fr (news.pyrenet.fr [194.116.145.2])
	by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFBB5D6819
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Wed,  2 Nov 2005 05:32:53 -0400 (AST)
Received: by floppy.pyrenet.fr (Postfix, from userid 106)
	id 45A4E31058; Wed,  2 Nov 2005 10:32:54 +0100 (MET)
From: "PostgreSQL" <martin@portant.com>
X-Newsgroups: pgsql.performance
Subject: Re: 8.1beta3 performance
Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 03:32:45 -0600
Organization: Hub.Org Networking Services
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <dka140$1rt4$1@news.hub.org>
References: <dk68ku$2lqa$1@news.hub.org>
	<20051101085037.1b12b077@fc63r41.npci.com>
	<26529.1130865883@sss.pgh.pa.us>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.hub.org
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2670
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
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: 200511/23
X-Sequence-Number: 15280

I'm seeing some other little oddities in the beta as well.  I'm watching an 
ALTER TABLE ADD COLUMN right now that has been running almost two hours.  I 
stopped it the first time at 1 hour; I suppose I'll let it go this time and 
see if it ever completes.  The table is about 150K rows.  Top, vmstat, and 
iostat show almost no cpu or disk activity (1 to 3%) - it's as if it just 
went to sleep.

"Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote in message 
news:26529.1130865883@sss.pgh.pa.us...
> Jon Brisbin <jon.brisbin@npcinternational.com> writes:
>> I have a stock FreeBSD 5.4 box that I put 8.1 on last night. I ran
>> pgbench against it and my tps dropped from ~300tps in 8.0.3 to 20tps
>> in 8.1. That's right. 20. No changes in any system configuration.
>
> You sure about that last?  These numbers are kind of consistent with the
> idea that fsync is off in the 8.0 database and on in the 8.1 database.
>
> Using the same test case you mention (pgbench -s 10, -c 25 -t 1000),
> I find that 8.1 is a bit faster than 8.0, eg
>
> 8.1 fsync off:
> tps = 89.831186 (including connections establishing)
> tps = 89.865065 (excluding connections establishing)
>
> 8.1 fsync on:
> tps = 74.865078 (including connections establishing)
> tps = 74.889066 (excluding connections establishing)
>
> 8.0 fsync off:
> tps = 80.271338 (including connections establishing)
> tps = 80.302054 (excluding connections establishing)
>
> 8.0 fsync on:
> tps = 67.405708 (including connections establishing)
> tps = 67.426546 (excluding connections establishing)
>
> (All database parameters are defaults except fsync.)
>
> These numbers are with assert-enabled builds, on a cheap PC whose drive
> lies about write-complete, so they're not very representative of the
> real world I suppose.  But I'm sure not seeing any 10x degradation.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>