Re: Why HDD performance is better than SSD in this case
От | Mark Kirkwood |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Why HDD performance is better than SSD in this case |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 97827539-bf60-d53c-3af9-fa87eb923606@catalyst.net.nz обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Why HDD performance is better than SSD in this case (Mark Kirkwood <mark.kirkwood@catalyst.net.nz>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
And perhaps more interesting: Re-running query 9 against the (single) HDD setup *but* with pgsql_tmp symlinked to the 2x SSD RAID0: 15 minutes I'm thinking that you have inadvertently configured your HDD test in this way (you get 9 minutes because you have 2x HDDs). Essentially most of the time taken for this query is in writing and reading files for sorting/hashing, so where pgsql_tmp is located hugely influences the overall time. regards Mark On 20/07/18 12:33, Mark Kirkwood wrote: > FWIW: > > re-running query 9 using the SSD setup as 2x crucial M550 RAID0: 10 > minutes. > > > On 20/07/18 11:30, Mark Kirkwood wrote: >> One more thought on this: >> >> Query 9 does a lot pf sorting to disk - so there will be writes for >> that and all the reads for the table scans. Thus the location of your >> instance's pgsql_tmp directory(s) will significantly influence results. >> >> I'm wondering if in your HDD test the pgsql_tmp on the *SSD's* is >> being used. This would make the HDDs look faster (obviously - as they >> only need to do reads now). You can check this with iostat while the >> HDD test is being run, there should be *no* activity on the SSDs...if >> there is you have just found one reason for the results being quicker >> than it should be. >> >> FWIW: I had a play with this: ran two version 10.4 instances, one on >> a single 7200 rpm HDD, one on a (ahem slow) Intel 600p NVME. Running >> query 9 on the scale 40 databases I get: >> >> - SSD 30 minutes >> >> - HDD 70 minutes >> >> No I'm running these on an a Intel i7 3.4 Ghz 16 GB RAM setup. Also >> both postgres instances have default config apart from random_page_cost. >> >> Comparing my results with yours - the SSD one is consistent...if I >> had two SSDs in RAID0 I might halve the time (I might try this). >> However my HDD result is not at all like yours (mine makes more sense >> to be fair...would expect HDD to be slower in general). >> >> Cheers (thanks for an interesting puzzle)! >> >> Mark >> >> >> >> On 18/07/18 13:13, Neto pr wrote: >>> >>> Dear Mark >>> To ensure that the test is honest and has the same configuration the >>> O.S. and also DBMS, my O.S. is installed on the SSD and DBMS as well. >>> I have an instance only of DBMS and two database. >>> - a database called tpch40gnorhdd with tablespace on the HDD disk. >>> - a database called tpch40gnorssd with tablespace on the SSD disk. >>> See below: >>> >>> >> >> > >
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: