Re: Will higher shared_buffers improve tpcb-like benchmarks? - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Saurabh Nanda
Subject Re: Will higher shared_buffers improve tpcb-like benchmarks?
Date
Msg-id CAPz=2oH+ZkXMHTX68fCLPgTHzJWEkm2rj2mAUeravg+iGJdumQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Will higher shared_buffers improve tpcb-like benchmarks?  (Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Will higher shared_buffers improve tpcb-like benchmarks?  (Saurabh Nanda <saurabhnanda@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-performance
That is likely correct, but the data will likely be stored in the OS file cache, so reading it from there will still be pretty fast.

Right -- but increasing shared_buffers won't increase my TPS, right? Btw, I just realised that irrespective of shared_buffers, my entire DB is already in memory (DB size=30GB, RAM=64GB). I think the following output from iotop confirms this. All throughout the benchmarking (client=1,4,8,12,24,48,96), the disk read values remain zero!

    Total DISK READ :       0.00 B/s | Total DISK WRITE :      73.93 M/s
    Actual DISK READ:       0.00 B/s | Actual DISK WRITE:      43.69 M/s                                                                                        

Could this explain why my TPS numbers are not changing no matter how much I fiddle with the Postgres configuration?

If my hypothesis is correct, increasing the pgbench scale to get a 200GB database would immediately show different results, right?

-- Saurabh.

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Jeff Janes
Date:
Subject: Re: Will higher shared_buffers improve tpcb-like benchmarks?
Next
From: Bob Jolliffe
Date:
Subject: How can sort performance be so different