Re: [PERFORM] performance problem on big tables - Mailing list pgsql-performance
| From | Mariel Cherkassky |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: [PERFORM] performance problem on big tables |
| Date | |
| Msg-id | CA+t6e1k7MOf0vgs2t=tWZ-tJ3MGmTqq1bkcQseRCZ9n+u-QBkQ@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
| In response to | Re: [PERFORM] performance problem on big tables (Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>) |
| Responses |
Re: [PERFORM] performance problem on big tables
(Daniel Blanch Bataller <daniel.blanch.bataller@gmail.com>)
|
| List | pgsql-performance |
After all the changes of the memory parameters the same operation(without the copy utility) didnt run much faster - it took one minute less. I made a test with the copy command (without the 'with binary') and it took 1.5 hours to create the dumpfile in my local postgresql server. Then I tried to run the copy from the local dump and it is already running two hours and it didnt even finish. I looked at the server log and I saw that I run the copy command at 13:18:05, 3 minutes later checkpoint started and completed and there are no messages in the log after that. What can I do ? Improving the memory parameters and the memory on the server didnt help and for now the copy command doesnt help either.
2017-08-15 20:14 GMT+03:00 Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com>:
On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 4:06 AM, Mariel Cherkassky
<mariel.cherkassky@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> So I I run the cheks that jeff mentioned :
> \copy (select * from oracle_remote_table) to /tmp/tmp with binary - 1 hour
> and 35 minutes
So 26G takes 95 minutes, or 27 MB/minute or 456k/second? Sound about
right (it's early, I haven't had enough coffee please check my math).
That's pretty slow unless you're working across pretty big distances
with mediocre connections. My home internet downloads about 100MB/s
by comparison.
> \copy local_postresql_table from /tmp/tmp with binary - Didnt run because
> the remote oracle database is currently under maintenance work.
You shouldn't need the remote oracle server if you've already copied
it over, you're just copying from local disk into the local pgsql db.
Unless I'm missing something.
> So I decided to follow MichaelDBA tips and I set the ram on my machine to
> 16G and I configured the effective_cache memory to 14G,tshared_buffer to be
> 2G and maintenance_work_mem to 4G.
Good settings. Maybe set work_mem to 128MB or so while you're at it.
> I started running the copy checks again and for now it coppied 5G in 10
> minutes. I have some questions :
> 1)When I run insert into local_postresql_table select * from
> remote_oracle_table I insert that data as bulk to the local table or row by
> row ? If the answer as bulk than why copy is a better option for this case
> ?
insert into select from oracle remote is one big copy, but it will
take at least as long as copying from oracle to the local network
took. Compare that to the same thing but use file_fdw on the file
locally.
> 2)The copy from dump into the postgresql database should take less time than
> the copy to dump ?
Yes. The copy from Oracle to your local drive is painfully slow for a
modern network connection.
> 3)What do you think about the new memory parameters that I cofigured ?
They should be OK. I'm more worried about the performance of the io
subsystem tbh.
pgsql-performance by date: