Re: Compression and on-disk sorting
От | Jim C. Nasby |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Compression and on-disk sorting |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20060524201230.GI59464@pervasive.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Compression and on-disk sorting (Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: Compression and on-disk sorting
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Finally completed testing of a dataset that doesn't fit in memory with compression enabled. Results are at http://jim.nasby.net/misc/pgsqlcompression . Summary: work_mem compressed not compressed gain in-memory 20000 400.1 797.7 49.8% in-memory 2000 371.4 805.7 53.9% not in-memory 20000 8537 17436 51.0% not in-memory 2000 8152 17820 54.3% I find it very interesting that the gains are identical even when the tapes should fit in memory. My guess is that for some reason the OS is flushing those to disk anyway. In fact, watching gstat during a run, I do see write activity hitting the drives. So if there was some way to tune that behavior, the in-memory case would probably be much, much faster. Anyone know FreeBSD well enough to suggest how to change this? Anyone want to test on linux and see if the results are the same? This could indicate that it might be advantageous to attempt an in-memory sort with compressed data before spilling that compressed data to disk... As for CPU utilization, it was ~33% with compression and ~13% without. That tells me that CPU could become a factor if everything was truely in memory (including the table we were reading from), but if that's the case there's a good chance that we wouldn't even be switching to an on-disk sort. If everything isn't in memory then you're likely to be IO bound anyway... -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: