Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?
От | David Kerr |
---|---|
Тема | Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20100420173936.GA50886@mr-paradox.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?
Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance? Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance? Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance? |
Список | pgsql-performance |
Howdy all, I've got a huge server running just postgres. It's got 48 cores and 256GB of ram. Redhat 5.4, Postgres 8.3.9. 64bit OS. No users currently. I've got a J2EE app that loads data into the DB, it's got logic behind it so it's not a simple bulk load, so i don't think we can use copy. Based on the tuning guides, it set my effective_cache_size to 128GB (1/2 the available memory) on the box. When I ran my load, it took aproximately 15 hours to do load 20 million records. I thought this was odd because on a much smaller machine I was able to do that same amount of records in 6 hours. My initial thought was hardware issues so we got sar, vmstat, etc all running on the box and they didn't give any indication that we had resource issues. So I decided to just make the 2 PG config files look the same. (the only change was dropping effective_cache_size from 128GB to 2GB). Now the large box performs the same as the smaller box. (which is fine). incidentally, both tests were starting from a blank database. Is this expected? Thanks! Dave
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: