On Tue, 2010-04-20 at 10:39 -0700, David Kerr wrote: > Howdy all, > > I've got a huge server running just postgres. It's got 48 cores and 256GB of > ram. Redhat 5.4, Postgres 8.3.9. > 64bit OS. No users currently. > > I've got a J2EE app that loads data into the DB, it's got logic behind it so > it's not a simple bulk load, so > i don't think we can use copy. > > Based on the tuning guides, it set my effective_cache_size to 128GB (1/2 the > available memory) on the box. > > When I ran my load, it took aproximately 15 hours to do load 20 million > records. I thought this was odd because > on a much smaller machine I was able to do that same amount of records in 6 > hours. > > My initial thought was hardware issues so we got sar, vmstat, etc all running > on the box and they didn't give > any indication that we had resource issues. > > So I decided to just make the 2 PG config files look the same. (the only > change was dropping effective_cache_size > from 128GB to 2GB). > > Now the large box performs the same as the smaller box. (which is fine). > > incidentally, both tests were starting from a blank database. > > Is this expected?
Without a more complete picture of the configuration, this post doesn't mean a whole lot. Further, effective_cash_size is not likely to effect a bulk load at all. Joshua D. Drake > > Thanks! > > Dave > -- PostgreSQL.org Major Contributor Command Prompt, Inc: http://www.commandprompt.com/ - 503.667.4564 Consulting, Training, Support, Custom Development, Engineering -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
