Unix Technical Forum

SEO

vBulletin Search Engine Optimization


Go Back   Unix Technical Forum > Database Server Software > PostgreSQL > Pgsql Performance

Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 04-19-2008, 08:46 AM
Guido Neitzer
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Postgres scalability and performance on windows

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

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 04-19-2008, 08:46 AM
Frank Wiles
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: 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
---------------------------------


---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 04-19-2008, 08:47 AM
Gopal
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Postgres scalability and performance on windows

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

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 04-19-2008, 08:47 AM
Tom Lane
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Postgres scalability and performance on windows

"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

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 04-19-2008, 08:47 AM
J. Andrew Rogers
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Postgres scalability and performance on windows


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

Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.2.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886