Re: Database size Vs performance degradation
От | Matthew Wakeling |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Database size Vs performance degradation |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.64.0807301331550.4250@aragorn.flymine.org обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Database size Vs performance degradation ("Dave North" <DNorth@signiant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Database size Vs performance degradation
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008, Dave North wrote: > Running on HP DL380 w/ 4GB RAM, dual 10K HDDs in RAID 0+1 > Checking the stats, the DB size is around 7.5GB; Doesn't fit in RAM. > ...after the load, the DB size was around 2.7GB Does fit in RAM. > One observation I've made on the DB system is the disk I/O seems > dreadfully slow...we're at around 75% I/O wait sometimes and the read > rates seem quite slow (hdparm says around 2.2MB/sec - 20MB/sec for > un-cached reads). That's incredibly slow in this day and age, especially from 10krpm HDDs. Definitely worth investigating. However, I think vacuuming more agressively is going to be your best win at the moment. Matthew -- Patron: "I am looking for a globe of the earth." Librarian: "We have a table-top model over here." Patron: "No, that's not good enough. Don't you have a life-size?" Librarian: (pause) "Yes, but it's in use right now."
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: