Re: Performance Tuning Document?
От | Matthew Kirkwood |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Performance Tuning Document? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.33.0203281732400.11581-100000@sphinx.mythic-beasts.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Performance Tuning Document? ("Steve Wolfe" <steve@iboats.com>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Steve Wolfe wrote: > > I haven't been able to find anything resembling a performance > > tuning document. Does such a thing exist? > > Unfortunately, not in any complete sense. > > There are a few guides from Bruce that make a good effort, but there > seems to be a *lot* of other information that can only be gleaned by > either being a developper or following the list very closely for a few > years. Bruce's hardware tuning guide also doesn't really give any > sorts of guidelines or numbers to start from, it merely explains > concepts and leaves the investigation and twiddling to you. Yep. Guess I have a few busy evenings and weekends ahead... > > Under the "crossSectionTests(Mixed IR)" part of an OSDB run, a > > large number of shared_buffers causes severe slowdown on one of > > the tests -- it goes from a little over 200 seconds to nearly > > 2000. I suspect internal lock contention, or maybe it's just > > that the read() path in Linux is quicker than PG's own cache? > Huge, raging amounts of shared buffers do have the consequence of > diminishing your disk cache size. You want to make sure that you can > always keep the *entire* database in disk cache, or you end up taking > a performance hit by having to read from disk, in the same spirit of > keeping your machine from swapping. I watched the run with "vmstat 1" and there was very close to zero disk read activity (and no swapping). My test machine has ~400Mb or RAM and the shared_buffers shouldn't have been over 80Mb, so that makes sense to me. I guess there's a linear list, a poor hash function, or some heavy lock contention somewhere causing this. Matthew.
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: