On 7/19/05, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Christopher Petrilli <petrilli@gmail.com> writes:
> > Not sure... my benchmark is designed to represent what the database
> > will do under "typical" circumstances, and unfortunately these are
> > typical for the application. However, I can see about adding some
> > delays, though multiple minutes would be absurd in the application.
> > Perhaps a 5-10 second day? Would that still be interesting?
>
> I think PFC's question was not directed towards modeling your
> application, but about helping us understand what is going wrong
> (so we can fix it). It seemed like a good idea to me.
OK, I can modify the code to do that, and I will post it on the web.
> The startup transient probably corresponds to the extra I/O needed to
> repopulate shared buffers with a useful subset of your indexes. But
> just to be perfectly clear: you tried this, and after the startup
> transient it returned to the *original* trend line? In particular,
> the performance goes into the tank after about 5000 total iterations,
> and not 5000 iterations after the postmaster restart?
This is correct, the TOTAL is what matters, not the specific instance
count. I did an earlier run with larger batch sizes, and it hit at a
similar row count, so it's definately row-count/size related.
> I'm suddenly wondering if the performance dropoff corresponds to the
> point where the indexes have grown large enough to not fit in shared
> buffers anymore. If I understand correctly, the 5000-iterations mark
> corresponds to 2.5 million total rows in the table; with 5 indexes
> you'd have 12.5 million index entries or probably a couple hundred MB
> total. If the insertion pattern is sufficiently random that the entire
> index ranges are "hot" then you might not have enough RAM.
This is entirely possible, currently:
shared_buffers = 1000
work_mem = 65535
maintenance_work_mem = 16384
max_stack_depth = 2048
> Again, experimenting with different values of shared_buffers seems like
> a very worthwhile thing to do.
I miss-understood shared_buffers then, as I thought work_mem was where
indexes were kept. If this is where index manipulations happen, then
I can up it quite a bit. The machine this is running on has 2GB of
RAM.
My concern isn't absolute performance, as this is not representative
hardware, but instead is the evenness of behavior.
Chris
--
| Christopher Petrilli
| petrilli@gmail.com
