Re: postgres 9.3 vs. 9.4
От | Andrew Dunstan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: postgres 9.3 vs. 9.4 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 541B3341.9090406@dunslane.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: postgres 9.3 vs. 9.4 ("Mkrtchyan, Tigran" <tigran.mkrtchyan@desy.de>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
On 09/18/2014 03:09 PM, Mkrtchyan, Tigran wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com> >> To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org >> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2014 7:54:24 PM >> Subject: Re: [PERFORM] postgres 9.3 vs. 9.4 >> >> On 09/18/2014 08:09 AM, Mkrtchyan, Tigran wrote: >>>>> 9.4beta2: >>>>> ... >>>>> >>>>>>> 0.957854 END; >>>>>>> >>>>> Looks like IO. >>> Postgres internal IO? May be. We get 600MB/s on this SSDs. >> While it's possible that this is a Postgres issue, my first thought is >> that the two SSDs are not actually identical. The 9.4 one may either >> have a fault, or may be mostly full and heavily fragmented. Or the Dell >> PCIe card may have an issue. > > We have tested both SSDs and they have identical IO characteristics and > as I already mentioned, both databases are fresh, including filesystem. > >> You are using "scale 1" which is a < 1MB database, and one client and 1 >> thread, which is an interesting test I wouldn't necessarily have done >> myself. I'll throw the same test on one of my machines and see how it does. > this scenario corresponds to our use case. We need a high transaction rate > per for a single client. Currently I can get only ~1500 tps. Unfortunately, > posgtress does not tell me where the bottleneck is. Is this is defensively > not the disk IO. > > > This is when you dig out tools like perf, maybe. cheers andrew
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: