Re: PostgreSQL performance issues - Mailing list pgsql-performance
From | Willo van der Merwe |
---|---|
Subject | Re: PostgreSQL performance issues |
Date | |
Msg-id | 44F56CE9.6060602@studentvillage.co.za Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: PostgreSQL performance issues (Rusty Conover <rconover@infogears.com>) |
Responses |
Re: PostgreSQL performance issues
|
List | pgsql-performance |
Rusty Conover wrote: > > On Aug 29, 2006, at 7:52 AM, Willo van der Merwe wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> We're running PostgreSQL 8.1.4 on CentOS 4 (Linux version >> 2.6.9-34.0.1.ELsmp). Hardware specs: >> 2x AMD Dual-Core Opteron 270 Italy 1Ghz HT 2 x 1MB L2 Cache Socket 940 >> 4 GB Registered ECC PC3200 DDR RAM >> SuperMicro Server-Class 1U AS1020S series system >> Dual-channel Ultra320 SCSI controller >> 1 x 73 GB 10,000rpm Ultra320 SCSI drive with 8MB cache >> I use it to drive a web application. Everything was working fine when >> all of a sudden today, things went belly up. Load on the server >> started increasing and query speeds decreased rapidly. After dropping >> all the clients I did some quick tests and found the following: >> >> I have a log table looking like this: >> Table "public.log" >> Column | Type | Modifiers >> ---------+-----------------------------+--------------------------------- >> site | bigint | not null >> stamp | timestamp without time zone | default now() >> type | character(8) | not null default 'log'::bpchar >> user | text | not null default 'public'::text >> message | text | >> Indexes: >> "fki_log_sites" btree (site) >> "ix_log_stamp" btree (stamp) >> "ix_log_type" btree ("type") >> "ix_log_user" btree ("user") >> Foreign-key constraints: >> "log_sites" FOREIGN KEY (site) REFERENCES sites(id) ON UPDATE >> CASCADE ON DELETE CASCADE >> >> and it has 743321 rows and a explain analyze select count(*) from >> property_values; >> QUERY >> PLAN >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Aggregate (cost=55121.95..55121.96 rows=1 width=0) (actual >> time=4557.797..4557.798 rows=1 loops=1) >> -> Seq Scan on property_values (cost=0.00..51848.56 rows=1309356 >> width=0) (actual time=0.026..2581.418 rows=1309498 loops=1) >> Total runtime: 4557.978 ms >> (3 rows) >> >> 4 1/2 seconds for a count(*) ? This seems a bit rough - is there >> anything else I can try to optimize my Database? You can imagine that >> slightly more complex queries goes out the roof. >> >> Any help appreciated >> >> Regards >> >> Willo van der Merwe > > > Hi, > > What about doing a little bit of normalization? > > With 700k rows you could probably gain some improvements by: > > * normalizing the type and user columns to integer keys (dropping the > 8 byte overhead for storing the field lengths) > * maybe change the type column so that its a smallint if there is just > a small range of possible values (emulating a enum type in other > databases) rather the joining to another table. > * maybe move message (if the majority of the rows are big and not null > but not big enough to be TOASTed, ergo causing only a small number of > rows to fit onto a 8k page) out of this table into a separate table > that is joined only when you need the column's content. > > Doing these things would fit more rows onto each page, making the scan > less intensive by not causing the drive to seek as much. Of course > all of these suggestions depend on your workload. > > Cheers, > > Rusty > -- > Rusty Conover > InfoGears Inc. > Hi Rusty, Good ideas and I've implemented some of them, and gained about 10%. I'm still sitting on a load avg of about 60. Any ideas on optimizations on my postgresql.conf, that might have an effect?
pgsql-performance by date: