This is a discussion on Re: Postgres scalability and performance on windows within the Pgsql Performance forums, part of the PostgreSQL category; --> Am 23.11.2006 um 23:37 schrieb Gopal: > hared_buffers = 20000 # min 16 or > max_connections*2, 8KB each If ...
| |||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| ||||
| Am 23.11.2006 um 23:37 schrieb Gopal: > hared_buffers = 20000 # min 16 or > max_connections*2, 8KB each If this is not a copy & paste error, you should add the "s" at the beginning of the line. Also you might want to set this to a higher number. You are setting about 20000 * 8k = 160MB, this number might be a bit too small if you do a lot of queries spread over the whole dataset. I don't know whether the memory management on Windows handles this well, but you can give it a try. > effective_cache_size = 82728 # typically 8KB each Hmm. I don't know what the real effect of this might be as the doc states: "This parameter has no effect on the size of shared memory allocated by PostgreSQL, nor does it reserve kernel disk cache; it is used only for estimation purposes." You should try optimizing your shared_buffers to cache more of the data. > But postgres has everything spread across 10-15 processes, with > each process using about 10-30MB, not nearly enough to cache all > the data and ends up doing a lot of disk reads. It's not soo easy. PostgreSQL maintains a shared_buffer which is accessible by all processes for reading. On a Unix system you can see this in the output of top - don't know how this works on Windows. > In any case I cannot believe that having 15-20 processes running on > windows helps. Why not spwan of threads instead of processes, which > migh be far less expensive and more efficient. Is there any way of > doing this? Because it brings you a whole lot of other problems? And because PostgreSQL is not "made for Windows". PostgreSQL runs very good on Linux, BSD, Mac OS X and others. The Windows version is quite young. But before you blame stuff on PostgreSQL you should give more information about the query itself. > My question is, should I just accept the performance I am getting > as the limit on windows or should I be looking at some other params > that I might have missed? Post the "explain analyse select <your query here>" output here. That might help to understand, why you get such a high CPU load. cug ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend |
| |||
| On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 09:22:45 +0100 Guido Neitzer <lists@event-s.net> wrote: > > effective_cache_size = 82728 # typically 8KB each > Hmm. I don't know what the real effect of this might be as the doc > states: > > "This parameter has no effect on the size of shared memory allocated > by PostgreSQL, nor does it reserve kernel disk cache; it is used > only for estimation purposes." This is a hint to the optimizer about how much of the database may be in the OS level cache. --------------------------------- Frank Wiles <frank@wiles.org> http://www.wiles.org --------------------------------- ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq |
| |||
| Tom, This is the query and the schema.... Query is : SELECT subq.percentCover, ds.datasetname, ds.maxresolution FROM ( select sum(area(intersection(snaptogrid(chunkgeometry,0.0 0000001), GeometryFromText('POLYGON((-0.140030845589332 50.8208343077265,-0.138958398039148 50.8478005422809,-0.0963639712296823 50.8471133071392,-0.0974609286275892 50.8201477285483,-0.140030845589332 50.8208343077265))',4326))) * 100/ (0.00114901195862628)) as percentCover, datasetid as did from tbl_metadata_chunks where chunkgeometry && GeometryFromText('POLYGON((-0.140030845589332 50.8208343077265,-0.138958398039148 50.8478005422809,-0.0963639712296823 50.8471133071392,-0.0974609286275892 50.8201477285483,-0.140030845589332 50.8208343077265))',4326) and datasetid in (select datasetid from tbl_metadata_dataset where typeofdataid=1) group by did order by did desc ) AS subq INNER JOIN tbl_metadata_dataset AS ds ON subq.did = ds.datasetid ORDER by ceil(subq.percentCover),1/ds.maxresolution DESC; Schema is Table 1 CREATE TABLE public.tbl_metadata_dataset ( datasetname varchar(70) NOT NULL, maxresolution real, typeofdataid integer NOT NULL, datasetid serial NOT NULL, CONSTRAINT "PK_Dataset" PRIMARY KEY (datasetid) ); -- Indexes CREATE INDEX dsnameindex ON tbl_metadata_dataset USING btree (datasetname);-- Owner ALTER TABLE public.tbl_metadata_dataset OWNER TO postgres; -- Triggers CREATE CONSTRAINT TRIGGER "RI_ConstraintTrigger_2196039" AFTER DELETE ON tbl_metadata_dataset FROM tbl_metadata_chunks NOT DEFERRABLE INITIALLY IMMEDIATE FOR EACH ROW EXECUTE PROCEDURE "RI_FKey_noaction_del"('dsid', 'tbl_metadata_chunks', 'tbl_metadata_dataset', 'UNSPECIFIED', 'datasetid', 'datasetid'); CREATE CONSTRAINT TRIGGER "RI_ConstraintTrigger_2196040" AFTER UPDATE ON tbl_metadata_dataset FROM tbl_metadata_chunks NOT DEFERRABLE INITIALLY IMMEDIATE FOR EACH ROW EXECUTE PROCEDURE "RI_FKey_noaction_upd"('dsid', 'tbl_metadata_chunks', 'tbl_metadata_dataset', 'UNSPECIFIED', 'datasetid', 'datasetid'); Table 2 CREATE TABLE public.tbl_metadata_chunks ( chunkid serial NOT NULL, chunkgeometry geometry NOT NULL, datasetid integer NOT NULL, CONSTRAINT tbl_metadata_chunks_pkey PRIMARY KEY (chunkid), CONSTRAINT dsid FOREIGN KEY (datasetid) REFERENCES tbl_metadata_dataset(datasetid) ); -- Indexes CREATE INDEX idx_dsid ON tbl_metadata_chunks USING btree (datasetid); CREATE UNIQUE INDEX tbl_metadata_chunks_idx2 ON tbl_metadata_chunks USING btree (nativetlx, nativetly, datasetid); CREATE INDEX tbl_metadata_chunks_idx3 ON tbl_metadata_chunks USING gist (chunkgeometry);-- Owner ALTER TABLE public.tbl_metadata_chunks OWNER TO postgres; -- Triggers CREATE CONSTRAINT TRIGGER "RI_ConstraintTrigger_2194515" AFTER DELETE ON tbl_metadata_chunks FROM tbl_metadata_chunkinfo NOT DEFERRABLE INITIALLY IMMEDIATE FOR EACH ROW EXECUTE PROCEDURE "RI_FKey_restrict_del"('fk', 'tbl_metadata_chunkinfo', 'tbl_metadata_chunks', 'UNSPECIFIED', 'chunkid', 'chunkid'); CREATE CONSTRAINT TRIGGER "RI_ConstraintTrigger_2194516" AFTER UPDATE ON tbl_metadata_chunks FROM tbl_metadata_chunkinfo NOT DEFERRABLE INITIALLY IMMEDIATE FOR EACH ROW EXECUTE PROCEDURE "RI_FKey_restrict_upd"('fk', 'tbl_metadata_chunkinfo', 'tbl_metadata_chunks', 'UNSPECIFIED', 'chunkid', 'chunkid'); CREATE CONSTRAINT TRIGGER "RI_ConstraintTrigger_2196037" AFTER INSERT ON tbl_metadata_chunks FROM tbl_metadata_dataset NOT DEFERRABLE INITIALLY IMMEDIATE FOR EACH ROW EXECUTE PROCEDURE "RI_FKey_check_ins"('dsid', 'tbl_metadata_chunks', 'tbl_metadata_dataset', 'UNSPECIFIED', 'datasetid', 'datasetid'); CREATE CONSTRAINT TRIGGER "RI_ConstraintTrigger_2196038" AFTER UPDATE ON tbl_metadata_chunks FROM tbl_metadata_dataset NOT DEFERRABLE INITIALLY IMMEDIATE FOR EACH ROW EXECUTE PROCEDURE "RI_FKey_check_upd"('dsid', 'tbl_metadata_chunks', 'tbl_metadata_dataset', 'UNSPECIFIED', 'datasetid', 'datasetid'); -----Original Message----- From: Frank Wiles [mailto:frank@wiles.org] Sent: 24 November 2006 17:05 To: Guido Neitzer Cc: Gopal; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Postgres scalability and performance on windows On Fri, 24 Nov 2006 09:22:45 +0100 Guido Neitzer <lists@event-s.net> wrote: > > effective_cache_size = 82728 # typically 8KB each > Hmm. I don't know what the real effect of this might be as the doc > states: > > "This parameter has no effect on the size of shared memory allocated > by PostgreSQL, nor does it reserve kernel disk cache; it is used > only for estimation purposes." This is a hint to the optimizer about how much of the database may be in the OS level cache. --------------------------------- Frank Wiles <frank@wiles.org> http://www.wiles.org --------------------------------- __________________________________________________ ______________________ This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit: http://www.star.net.uk __________________________________________________ ______________________ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate |
| |||
| "Gopal" <gopal@getmapping.com> writes: > This is the query and the schema.... > ... > select > sum(area(intersection(snaptogrid(chunkgeometry,0.0 0000001), > GeometryFromText('POLYGON((-0.140030845589332 > 50.8208343077265,-0.138958398039148 50.8478005422809,-0.0963639712296823 > 50.8471133071392,-0.0974609286275892 50.8201477285483,-0.140030845589332 > 50.8208343077265))',4326))) * 100/ (0.00114901195862628)) as > percentCover, So evidently area(intersection(snaptogrid(...))) takes about 300 microsec per row. The PostGIS hackers would have to comment on whether that seems out-of-line or not, and whether you can make it faster. regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org |
| ||||
| On Nov 28, 2006, at 8:24 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > "Gopal" <gopal@getmapping.com> writes: >> This is the query and the schema.... >> ... >> select >> sum(area(intersection(snaptogrid(chunkgeometry,0.0 0000001), >> GeometryFromText('POLYGON((-0.140030845589332 >> 50.8208343077265,-0.138958398039148 >> 50.8478005422809,-0.0963639712296823 >> 50.8471133071392,-0.0974609286275892 >> 50.8201477285483,-0.140030845589332 >> 50.8208343077265))',4326))) * 100/ (0.00114901195862628)) as >> percentCover, > > So evidently area(intersection(snaptogrid(...))) takes about 300 > microsec per row. The PostGIS hackers would have to comment on > whether > that seems out-of-line or not, and whether you can make it faster. This is consistent with the typical cost for GIS geometry ops -- they are relatively expensive. When running queries against PostGIS fields for our apps, about half the CPU time will be spent inside the geometry ops. Fortunately, there is significant opportunity for improvement in the performance of the underlying code if anyone found the time to optimize (and uglify) it for raw speed. Cheers, J. Andrew Rogers ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|