Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?

От: David Kerr
Тема: Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?
Дата: ,
Msg-id: 20100420184727.GE53489@mr-paradox.net
(см: обсуждение, исходный текст)
Ответ на: Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?  (Robert Haas)
Ответы: Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?  (Scott Marlowe)
Список: pgsql-performance

Скрыть дерево обсуждения

Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?  (David Kerr, )
 Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?  ("Joshua D. Drake", )
 Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?  (Robert Haas, )
  Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?  (David Kerr, )
   Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?  (Nikolas Everett, )
    Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?  (Kris Jurka, )
    Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?  (David Kerr, )
     Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?  (Scott Marlowe, )
      Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?  (David Kerr, )
       Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?  (Scott Marlowe, )
        Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?  (David Kerr, )
       Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?  (Scott Marlowe, )
       Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?  (Greg Smith, )
        Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?  (David Kerr, )
         Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?  (Greg Smith, )
   Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?  (Robert Haas, )
    Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?  (David Kerr, )
     Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?  (Scott Marlowe, )
      Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?  (Scott Carey, )
   Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?  ("Kevin Grittner", )
    Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?  (David Kerr, )
 Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?  (Scott Marlowe, )
  Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?  (Scott Marlowe, )
 Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?  ("Joshua D. Drake", )

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 02:15:19PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
- On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 2:03 PM, David Kerr <> wrote:
- > that thought occured to me while I was testing this. I ran a vacuumdb -z
- > on my database during the load and it didn't impact performance at all.
-
- The window to run ANALYZE usefully is pretty short.  If you run it
- before the load is complete, your stats will be wrong.  If you run it
- after the select statements that hit the table are planned, the
- updated stats won't arrive in time to do any good.

right, but i'm loading 20 million records in 1000 record increments. so
the analyze should affect all subsequent increments, no?

- > I did turn on log_min_duration_statement but that caused performance to be unbearable,
- > but i could turn it on again if it would help.
-
- I think you need to find a way to identify exactly which query is
- running slowly.  You could sit there and run "select * from
- pg_stat_activity", or turn on log_min_duration_statement, or have your
- application print out timestamps at key points, or some other
- method...

I'm on it.

Dave


В списке pgsql-performance по дате сообщения:

От: "Joshua D. Drake"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Very high effective_cache_size == worse performance?
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: performance change from 8.3.1 to later releases