Re: [PERFORM] 60 core performance with 9.3

2014-07-30 Thread Matt Clarkson
I've been assisting Mark with the benchmarking of these new servers. The drop off in both throughput and CPU utilisation that we've been observing as the client count increases has let me to investigate which lwlocks are dominant at different client counts. I've recompiled postgres with Andres L

Re: [PERFORM] 60 core performance with 9.3

2014-07-30 Thread Mark Kirkwood
On 31/07/14 00:47, Tomas Vondra wrote: On 30 Červenec 2014, 14:39, Tom Lane wrote: "Tomas Vondra" writes: On 30 ??ervenec 2014, 3:44, Mark Kirkwood wrote: While these numbers look great in the middle range (12-96 clients), then benefit looks to be tailing off as client numbers increase. Also

Re: [PERFORM] 60 core performance with 9.3

2014-07-30 Thread Mark Kirkwood
Hi Tomas, Unfortunately I think you are mistaken - disabling the stats collector (i.e. track_counts = off) means that autovacuum has no idea about when/if it needs to start a worker (as it uses those counts to decide), and hence you lose all automatic vacuum and analyze as a result. With res

Re: [PERFORM] Why you should turn on Checksums with SSDs

2014-07-30 Thread Merlin Moncure
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Tomas Vondra wrote: > On 30 Červenec 2014, 5:12, Josh Berkus wrote: >> Explained here: >> https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/fast13/fast13-final80.pdf >> >> 13 out of 15 tested SSD's had various kinds of corruption on a power-out. >> >> (thanks, Neil!)

[PERFORM] Slow create temp table

2014-07-30 Thread Clinton Adams
Greetings, Any help regarding a sporadic and mysterious issue would be much appreciated. A pgsql function for loading in data is occasionally taking 12+ hours to complete versus its normal 1-2 hours, due to a slow down at the CREATE TEMP TABLE step. During slow runs of the function, the temp tabl

Re: [PERFORM] 60 core performance with 9.3

2014-07-30 Thread Tomas Vondra
On 30 Červenec 2014, 14:39, Tom Lane wrote: > "Tomas Vondra" writes: >> On 30 ??ervenec 2014, 3:44, Mark Kirkwood wrote: >>> While these numbers look great in the middle range (12-96 clients), >>> then >>> benefit looks to be tailing off as client numbers increase. Also >>> running >>> with no sta

Re: [PERFORM] 60 core performance with 9.3

2014-07-30 Thread Tom Lane
"Tomas Vondra" writes: > On 30 Červenec 2014, 3:44, Mark Kirkwood wrote: >> While these numbers look great in the middle range (12-96 clients), then >> benefit looks to be tailing off as client numbers increase. Also running >> with no stats (and hence no auto vacuum or analyze) is way too scary!

Re: [PERFORM] Very slow planning performance on partition table

2014-07-30 Thread Rural Hunter
I think I understand what happened now. I have another monitor script runs periodically and calls pg_cancel_backend and pg_terminate_backend for those hanging update sqls. However for some unkown reason the cancle and termiante command doesn't work at pgsql side for those update sqls. But I th

Re: [PERFORM] Why you should turn on Checksums with SSDs

2014-07-30 Thread Tomas Vondra
On 30 Červenec 2014, 5:12, Josh Berkus wrote: > Explained here: > https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/fast13/fast13-final80.pdf > > 13 out of 15 tested SSD's had various kinds of corruption on a power-out. > > (thanks, Neil!) Well, only four of the devices supposedly had a power-loss pr

Re: [PERFORM] 60 core performance with 9.3

2014-07-30 Thread Tomas Vondra
On 30 Červenec 2014, 3:44, Mark Kirkwood wrote: > > While these numbers look great in the middle range (12-96 clients), then > benefit looks to be tailing off as client numbers increase. Also running > with no stats (and hence no auto vacuum or analyze) is way too scary! I assume you've disabled s