Re: New to PostgreSQL, performance considerations - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Ron
Subject Re: New to PostgreSQL, performance considerations
Date
Msg-id E1GuwGL-0004LX-2x@elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: New to PostgreSQL, performance considerations  (Alexander Staubo <alex@purefiction.net>)
Responses Re: New to PostgreSQL, performance considerations  (Alexander Staubo <alex@purefiction.net>)
List pgsql-performance
Alexander,   Good stuff.

Can you do runs with just CFLAGS="-O3" and just CFLAGS="-msse2
-mfpmath=sse -funroll-loops -m64 - march=opteron -pipe" as well ?

As it is, you've given a good lower and upper bound on your
performance obtainable using compiler options, but you've given no
data to show what effect arch specific compiler options have by themselves.

Also, what HDs are you using?  How many in what config?

Thanks in Advance,
Ron Peacetree

At 02:14 PM 12/14/2006, Alexander Staubo wrote:

>My PostgreSQL config overrides, then, are:
>
>shared_buffers = 1024MB
>work_mem = 1MB
>maintenance_work_mem = 16MB
>fsync = off
>
>Environment: Linux 2.6.15-23-amd64-generic on Ubuntu. Dual-core AMD
>Opteron 280 with 4GB of RAM. LSI PCI-X Fusion-MPT SAS.
>
>Running with: pgbench -S -v -n -t 5000 -c 5.
>
>Results as a graph: http://purefiction.net/paste/pgbench.pdf
>
>Stats for CFLAGS="-O0": 18440.181894 19207.882300 19894.432185
>19635.625622 19876.858884 20032.597042 19683.597973 20370.166669
>19989.157881 20207.343510 19993.745956 20081.353580 20356.416424
>20047.810017 20319.834190 19417.807528 19906.788454 20536.039929
>19491.308046 20002.144230
>
>Stats for CFLAGS="-O3 -msse2 -mfpmath=sse -funroll-loops -m64 -
>march=opteron -pipe": 23830.358351 26162.203569 25569.091264
>26762.755665 26590.822550 26864.908197 26608.029665 26796.116921
>26323.742015 26692.576261 26878.859132 26106.770425 26328.371664
>26755.595130 25488.304946 26635.527959 26377.485023 24817.590708
>26480.245737 26223.427801


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Tim Jones"
Date:
Subject: Re: strange query behavior
Next
From: "Steven Flatt"
Date:
Subject: Re: Insertion to temp table deteriorating over time