Re: help tuning queries on large database - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Ron
Subject Re: help tuning queries on large database
Date
Msg-id 7.0.1.0.2.20060108160633.026bd358@earthlink.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to help tuning queries on large database  (peter royal)
Responses Re: help tuning queries on large database  (Kelly Burkhart)
Re: help tuning queries on large database  (Mark Lewis)
List pgsql-performance
I'll second all of Luke Lonergan's comments and add these.

You should be able to increase both "cold" and "warm" performance (as
well as data integrity.  read below.) considerably.
Ron

At 05:59 PM 1/6/2006, peter royal wrote:
>Howdy.
>
>I'm running into scaling problems when testing with a 16gb (data
>+indexes) database.
>
>I can run a query, and it returns in a few seconds. If I run it
>again, it returns in a few milliseconds. I realize this is because
>during subsequent runs, the necessary disk pages have been cached by
>the OS.
>
>I have experimented with having all 8 disks in a single RAID0 set, a
>single RAID10 set, and currently 4 RAID0 sets of 2 disks each. There
>hasn't been an appreciable difference in the overall performance of
>my test suite (which randomly generates queries like the samples
>below as well as a few other types. this problem manifests itself on
>other queries in the test suite as well).
>
>So, my question is, is there anything I can do to boost performance
>with what I've got, or am I in a position where the only 'fix' is
>more faster disks? I can't think of any schema/index changes that
>would help, since everything looks pretty optimal from the 'explain
>analyze' output. I'd like to get a 10x improvement when querying from
>the 'cold' state.
>
>Thanks for any assistance. The advice from reading this list to
>getting to where I am now has been invaluable.
>-peter
>
>
>Configuration:
>
>PostgreSQL 8.1.1
>
>shared_buffers = 10000  # (It was higher, 50k, but didn't help any,
>so brought down to free ram for disk cache)
>work_mem = 8196
>random_page_cost = 3
>effective_cache_size = 250000
>
>
>Hardware:
>
>CentOS 4.2 (Linux 2.6.9-22.0.1.ELsmp)

Upgrade your kernel to at least  2.6.12
There's a known issue with earlier versions of the 2.6.x kernel and
64b CPUs like the Opteron.  See kernel.org for details.

>Areca ARC-1220 8-port PCI-E controller

Make sure you have 1GB or 2GB of cache.  Get the battery backup and
set the cache for write back rather than write through.

>8 x Hitachi Deskstar 7K80 (SATA2) (7200rpm)
>2 x Opteron 242 @ 1.6ghz
>3gb RAM (should be 4gb, but separate Linux issue preventing us from
>getting it to see all of it)
>Tyan Thunder K8WE
The K8WE has 8 DIMM slots.  That should be good for 16 or 32 GB of
RAM (Depending on whether the mainboard recognizes 4GB DIMMs or
not.  Ask Tyan about the latest K8WE firmare.).  If nothing else, 1GB
DIMMs are now so cheap that you should have no problems having 8GB on the K8WE.

A 2.6.12 or later based Linux distro should have NO problems using
more than 4GB or RAM.

Among the other tricks having lots of RAM allows:
If some of your tables are Read Only or VERY rarely written to, you
can preload them at boot time and make them RAM resident using the
/etc/tmpfs trick.

In addition there is at least one company making a cheap battery
backed PCI-X card that can hold up to 4GB of RAM and pretend to be a
small HD to the OS.  I don't remember any names at the moment, but
there have been posts here and at storage.review.com on such products.


>RAID Layout:
>
>4 2-disk RAID0 sets created
You do know that a RAID 0 set provides _worse_ data protection than a
single HD?  Don't use RAID 0 for any data you want kept reliably.

With 8 HDs, the best config is probably
1 2HD RAID 1 + 1 6HD RAID 10  or
2 4HD RAID 10's

It is certainly true that once you have done everything you can with
RAM, the next set of HW optimizations is to add HDs.  The more the
better up to a the limits of your available PCI-X bandwidth.

In short, a 2nd RAID fully populated controller is not unreasonable.



pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Luke Lonergan"
Date:
Subject: Re: help tuning queries on large database
Next
From: "Andy"
Date:
Subject: Re: Improving Inner Join Performance