Re: [HACKERS] survey of WAL blocksize changes

2009-05-28 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 21:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: So, if we assume that these numbers are real and not artifacts, it seems we have to postulate at least four distinct block-size-dependent performance effects: Two performance effects would be sufficient to explain the results. * Optimal

Re: [HACKERS] survey of WAL blocksize changes

2009-05-28 Thread Simon Riggs
On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 17:51 -0700, Mark Wong wrote: On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:46 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On Tue, 2009-05-26 at 19:51 -0700, Mark Wong wrote: It appears for this workload using a 16KB or 32KB gets more than 4% throughput improvement, but some of that

Re: [HACKERS] survey of WAL blocksize changes

2009-05-27 Thread Simon Riggs
On Tue, 2009-05-26 at 19:51 -0700, Mark Wong wrote: It appears for this workload using a 16KB or 32KB gets more than 4% throughput improvement, but some of that could be noise. The baseline appears to have a significant jump in txn response time after 77 mins on the baseline test. I think you

Re: [HACKERS] survey of WAL blocksize changes

2009-05-27 Thread Greg Stark
Why on earth would there be a dip precisely at 8k with both smaller and larger block sizes being faster?? -- Greg On 27 May 2009, at 03:51, Mark Wong mark...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, A long long time ago (in 2004) I ran a series of tests surveying the results of changing BLCKSZ when it

Re: [HACKERS] survey of WAL blocksize changes

2009-05-27 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On Wednesday 27 May 2009 05:51:05 Mark Wong wrote: BS notpm % Change from default -- - -- 1 14673 -4.8% 2 15864 2.9% 4 15774 2.3% 8 15413 (default) 16 16118 4.6% 32 16051 4.1% 64 14874 -3.5% This means that both somewhat larger and somewhat smaller than 8 give better

Re: [HACKERS] survey of WAL blocksize changes

2009-05-27 Thread Mark Wong
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:46 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On Tue, 2009-05-26 at 19:51 -0700, Mark Wong wrote: It appears for this workload using a 16KB or 32KB gets more than 4% throughput improvement, but some of that could be noise. The baseline appears to have a

Re: [HACKERS] survey of WAL blocksize changes

2009-05-27 Thread Tom Lane
Mark Wong mark...@gmail.com writes: Oopsies. I've rerun, but now that there is no dip, the average throughput still didn't change much: BS notpm % Change from default -- - -- 1 14673 -5.1% 2 15864 2.7% 4 15774 2.1% 8 15454 (default) 16 16118 4.3% 32 16051 3.9% 64 14874

Re: [HACKERS] survey of WAL blocksize changes

2009-05-27 Thread Greg Stark
I find it pretty hard to beleive that 8k is precisely where a drop in performance shows up unless there's some peculiar reason. The only peculiar reason I can imagine is full page writes. If the dbt2 workload is modifying already full pages then the full page writes will always be just shy

[HACKERS] survey of WAL blocksize changes

2009-05-26 Thread Mark Wong
Hi all, A long long time ago (in 2004) I ran a series of tests surveying the results of changing BLCKSZ when it was used for both the WAL logs and the rest of the database system: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2004-03/msg01194.php Now more than 5 years later and now being able to