From: Manfred Koizar <mkoi-pg@aon.at>
To: mlennert@club.worldonline.be
Cc: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: performance question
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:27:11 +0100
Message-ID: <u4eo2vgpa3fh107rh9trtbnp2qtrj53vnu@4ax.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <44591.164.15.128.4.1043082624.squirrel@http://moritz.homelinux.org>
References: <59665.164.15.128.4.1043062834.squirrel@http://moritz.homelinux.org>
<1k3o2v01b5ceh937kibrojn2fjks3fc93t@4ax.com>
<10031.164.15.128.4.1043077332.squirrel@http://moritz.homelinux.org>
<j19o2vo4hn15ghmmjfc40d2116ej4eg46u@4ax.com>
<44591.164.15.128.4.1043082624.squirrel@http://moritz.homelinux.org>
On Mon, 20 Jan 2003 18:10:24 +0100 (CET), "Moritz Lennert"
<mlennert@club.worldonline.be> wrote:
>I'll try that, although I haven't changed any of the tuples since import
>of the data (this is a static table...)
Then I must have miscalculated something :-( What does VACUUM VERBOSE
ANALYZE <yourtable> say?
>> From what I've seen I think that the planner is right to choose a seq
>> scan. 226 seconds for reading 120K pages (~ 1GB) is not very
>> impressive, though. What kind of disk do you have?
>
>IDE, Samsung, 7200rpm
>
>> Is your disk heavily fragmented?
>
>It shouldn't be.
>
>> Did you enable DMA?
>
>No, should I ?
Yes. Here is what I got on a P IV 2 GHz with a Seagate 7200rpm(?)
disk:
~ # hdparm -t -T /dev/hda
/dev/hda:
Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 0.39 seconds =328.21 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 2.49 seconds = 25.70 MB/sec
vs.
~ # hdparm -t -T /dev/hda
/dev/hda:
Timing buffer-cache reads: 128 MB in 0.37 seconds =345.95 MB/sec
Timing buffered disk reads: 64 MB in 23.38 seconds = 2.74 MB/sec
~ # l xx
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1332104434 2003-01-20 19:04 xx
~ # time dd if=xx of=/dev/null bs=8k
162610+1 Records in
162610+1 Records out
real 0m48.665s
user 0m0.150s
sys 0m1.690s
~ # hdparm -d 0 /dev/hda
~ # time dd if=xx of=/dev/null bs=8k
162610+1 Records in
162610+1 Records out
real 7m42.666s
user 0m0.270s
sys 1m27.160s
With DMA: More than 3000 pages / second
Without DMA: ~ 350 pages / second
Your throughput: ~ 530 pages / second
>> recommend setting shared_buffers to something in the range [1000,
>> 4000].
>> And one of my favorites: effective_cache_size = 40000
>
>I will have to increase /proc/sys/kernel/shmmax for that, or ?
Maybe for shared_buffers. Certainly not for effective_cache_size.
The latter does not consume resources, it's just a hint for the
planner.
Servus
Manfred
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-sql@postgresql.org
Cc: mkoi-pg@aon.at, mlennert@club.worldonline.be
Subject: Re: performance question
In-Reply-To: <u4eo2vgpa3fh107rh9trtbnp2qtrj53vnu@4ax.com>
* 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