On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 10:49 PM Nicola Contu wrote:
> Il giorno gio 7 mar 2019 alle ore 09:39 Nicola Contu
> ha scritto:
>> So the first file is on Postgres11.2 on a test server (and where I compare
>> 10 vs 11)
>> The second file, is our preprod machine running Postgres 11.2 (different
>> ha
Hello,
do you have any advice on this?
Thanks a lot in advance
Il giorno gio 7 mar 2019 alle ore 09:39 Nicola Contu
ha scritto:
> So the first file is on Postgres11.2 on a test server (and where I compare
> 10 vs 11)
> The second file, is our preprod machine running Postgres 11.2 (different
> h
So the first file is on Postgres11.2 on a test server (and where I compare
10 vs 11)
The second file, is our preprod machine running Postgres 11.2 (different
hardware etc, it is a VM). I know that could be confusing, but I just
wanted to compare that too because if you see the two files there's a l
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 12:12 AM Nicola Contu wrote:
> This is instead the strace of another server running the same version
> compiled but that is even slower.
Huh. That's a lot of lseek(). Some of these will be for random
reads/writes and will go way in v12, and some will be for probing the
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 11:14 PM Nicola Contu wrote:
> Here is the strace as requested for pg11
How does it compare to v10 running the same test?
--
Thomas Munro
https://enterprisedb.com
This is instead the strace of another server running the same version
compiled but that is even slower.
Il giorno mer 6 mar 2019 alle ore 11:14 Nicola Contu
ha scritto:
> Here is the strace as requested for pg11
>
> Thanks
>
> Il giorno mar 5 mar 2019 alle ore 17:47 Thomas Munro <
> thomas.mu
Here is the strace as requested for pg11
Thanks
Il giorno mar 5 mar 2019 alle ore 17:47 Thomas Munro
ha scritto:
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 4:22 AM Nicola Contu
> wrote:
> >
> > Not sure what you are requesting exactly but here is the strace for the
> start of the pg_ctl
>
> I meant that you cou
On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 4:22 AM Nicola Contu wrote:
>
> Not sure what you are requesting exactly but here is the strace for the start
> of the pg_ctl
I meant that you could run the server itself in the foreground under
strace, like so:
$ strace -f -c /usr/local/pgsql11.2/bin/postgres -D /db/pgsq
Not sure what you are requesting exactly but here is the strace for the
start of the pg_ctl
Il giorno lun 4 mar 2019 alle ore 21:55 Thomas Munro
ha scritto:
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 5:01 AM Nicola Contu
> wrote:
> > Attached a part of the strace running the pgbench command for pg11
> > Also a
On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 5:01 AM Nicola Contu wrote:
> Attached a part of the strace running the pgbench command for pg11
> Also attached strace_10 for pg10.6.
That looks like strace output from pgbench, and I don't see any
interesting differences between v10 and v11 (though I'm surprised to
see it
Nicola Contu writes:
> See attached perf report. The difference seems to be all in this line, but
> not sure :
> + 26.80% 0.00% 222 postmaster [kernel.kallsyms]
> [k] system_call_fastpath
That would suggest that many more kernel calls are happening, which is
s
Because I have 10.6 in production :) and I am comparing with what I will be
loosing.
And I read that in the release notes but as said in my first email, even
with data_sync_retry=on (going back to previous behavior) doesn't make any
difference.
So I am looking for something that will keep my perfo
> is there any reason why I am getting worse results using pgsql11.2 in
writing comparing it with pgsql 10.6?
>... And Yes both are compiled.
Why 10.6?
according to release notes
"14th February 2019: PostgreSQL 11.2, 10.7, 9.6.12, 9.5.16, and 9.4.21
Released!" https://www.postgresql.org/about/ne
I did a analyze in stages on both.
And Yes both are compiled.
This is the configure command (change 10.6 for PG10)
./configure --prefix=/usr/local/pgsql11.2
See attached perf report. The difference seems to be all in this line, but
not sure :
+ 26.80% 0.00% 222 postmaster
On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 5:02 AM Ray O'Donnell wrote:
> On 01/03/2019 15:01, Nicola Contu wrote:
> > Hello,
> > is there any reason why I am getting worse results using pgsql11.2 in
> > writing comparing it with pgsql 10.6?
> >
> > I have two Instances, both just restored, so no bloats.
> > Running
On 01/03/2019 15:01, Nicola Contu wrote:
Hello,
is there any reason why I am getting worse results using pgsql11.2 in
writing comparing it with pgsql 10.6?
I have two Instances, both just restored, so no bloats.
Running read queries I have pretty much same results, a little bit
better on pg11
Hello,
is there any reason why I am getting worse results using pgsql11.2 in
writing comparing it with pgsql 10.6?
I have two Instances, both just restored, so no bloats.
Running read queries I have pretty much same results, a little bit better
on pg11- Running writes the difference is in favour o
17 matches
Mail list logo
