Thanks all, but I still have not figured it out.
This is really strange because the tests were done on the same machine
(I use HP ML110 Proliant 8gb RAM - Xeon 2.8 ghz processor (4
cores), and POSTGRESQL 10.1.
- Only the mentioned query running at the time of the test.
- I repeated the query 7 tim
On 16/01/18 23:14, Neto pr wrote:
2018-01-15 20:04 GMT-08:00 Mark Kirkwood :
On 16/01/18 13:18, Fernando Hevia wrote:
The 6 Gb/s interface is capable of a maximum throughput of around 600
Mb/s. None of your drives can achieve that so I don't think you are limited
to the interface speed. Th
Le 16/01/2018 à 11:14, Neto pr a écrit :
2018-01-15 20:04 GMT-08:00 Mark Kirkwood :
On 16/01/18 13:18, Fernando Hevia wrote:
The 6 Gb/s interface is capable of a maximum throughput of around 600
Mb/s. None of your drives can achieve that so I don't think you are limited
to the interface spee
2018-01-15 20:04 GMT-08:00 Mark Kirkwood :
> On 16/01/18 13:18, Fernando Hevia wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> The 6 Gb/s interface is capable of a maximum throughput of around 600
>> Mb/s. None of your drives can achieve that so I don't think you are limited
>> to the interface speed. The 12 Gb/s interface s
On 16/01/18 13:18, Fernando Hevia wrote:
The 6 Gb/s interface is capable of a maximum throughput of around 600
Mb/s. None of your drives can achieve that so I don't think you are
limited to the interface speed. The 12 Gb/s interface speed advantage
kicks in when there are several drives in
2018-01-15 17:58 GMT-08:00 Justin Pryzby :
> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 05:19:59PM -0800, Neto pr wrote:
>> >> Can you reproduce the speed difference using dd ?
>> >> time sudo dd if=/dev/sdX of=/dev/null bs=1M count=32K
>> >> skip=$((128*$RANDOM/32)) # set bs to optimal_io_size
>> >
>> > Still I woul
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 05:19:59PM -0800, Neto pr wrote:
> >> Can you reproduce the speed difference using dd ?
> >> time sudo dd if=/dev/sdX of=/dev/null bs=1M count=32K
> >> skip=$((128*$RANDOM/32)) # set bs to optimal_io_size
> >
> > Still I would have expected somewhat similar results in the ou
2018-01-15 16:18 GMT-08:00 Fernando Hevia :
>
>
> 2018-01-15 20:25 GMT-03:00 Neto pr :
>>
>> 2018-01-15 17:55 GMT-02:00 Fernando Hevia :
>> >
>> >
>> > 2018-01-15 15:32 GMT-03:00 Georg H. :
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Hello Neto
>> >>
>> >> Am 14.01.2018 um 21:44 schrieb Neto pr:
>> >>>
>> >>> Dear all
>> >>
2018-01-15 20:25 GMT-03:00 Neto pr :
> 2018-01-15 17:55 GMT-02:00 Fernando Hevia :
> >
> >
> > 2018-01-15 15:32 GMT-03:00 Georg H. :
> >>
> >>
> >> Hello Neto
> >>
> >> Am 14.01.2018 um 21:44 schrieb Neto pr:
> >>>
> >>> Dear all
> >>>
> >>> Someone help me analyze the two execution plans below (E
2018-01-15 17:55 GMT-02:00 Fernando Hevia :
>
>
> 2018-01-15 15:32 GMT-03:00 Georg H. :
>>
>>
>> Hello Neto
>>
>> Am 14.01.2018 um 21:44 schrieb Neto pr:
>>>
>>> Dear all
>>>
>>> Someone help me analyze the two execution plans below (Explain ANALYZE
>>> used), is the query 9 of TPC-H benchmark [1]
Hi Georg,
Your answer I believe has revealed the real problem.
I looked at the specification of my SATA SSD, and from my SAS HDD, I
saw that the SAS has 12 Gb/s versus 6 Gb/s from the SSD
SSD: Samsung 500 GB SATA III 6Gb/s - Model: 850 Evo
http://www.samsung.com/semiconductor/minisite/ssd/product/
2018-01-15 15:32 GMT-03:00 Georg H. :
>
> Hello Neto
>
> Am 14.01.2018 um 21:44 schrieb Neto pr:
>
>> Dear all
>>
>> Someone help me analyze the two execution plans below (Explain ANALYZE
>> used), is the query 9 of TPC-H benchmark [1].
>> I'm using a server HP Intel Xeon 2.8GHz/4-core - Memory 8
we've had the same experience here - with older SATA 2 (3Gbps) - in spite
of SSD having no spin latency, the bus speed itself was half of the SAS-2
(6Gbps) we were using at the time which negated SSD perf in this area. HDD
was about the same perf as SSD for us.
Biran
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 1:32
Hello Neto
Am 14.01.2018 um 21:44 schrieb Neto pr:
Dear all
Someone help me analyze the two execution plans below (Explain ANALYZE
used), is the query 9 of TPC-H benchmark [1].
I'm using a server HP Intel Xeon 2.8GHz/4-core - Memory 8GB HDD SAS
320GB 15 Krpm AND SSD Sansung EVO 500GB.
My DB
2018-01-15 3:04 GMT-08:00 Neto pr :
> 2018-01-14 19:09 GMT-08:00 Justin Pryzby :
>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 06:25:40PM -0800, Neto pr wrote:
>>> > The query plan is all garbled by mail , could you resend? Or post a
link from
>>> > https://explain.depesz.com/
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 06:36:02P
2018-01-14 19:09 GMT-08:00 Justin Pryzby :
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 06:25:40PM -0800, Neto pr wrote:
>> > The query plan is all garbled by mail , could you resend? Or post a link
>> > from
>> > https://explain.depesz.com/
>
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 06:36:02PM -0800, Neto pr wrote:
>> I was not
On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 06:25:40PM -0800, Neto pr wrote:
> > The query plan is all garbled by mail , could you resend? Or post a link
> > from
> > https://explain.depesz.com/
On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 06:36:02PM -0800, Neto pr wrote:
> I was not able to upload to the site, because I'm saving the e
2018-01-14 15:59 GMT-08:00 Neto pr :
> Thanks for the reply.
> I'll try upload the execution plan with Explain (analyse, buffer) for
> website: https://explain.depesz.com/
>
Below is a new execution plan, with Analyze, BUFFERS. This time,
without changing anything in the configuration of the DBMS
2018-01-14 13:40 GMT-08:00 Justin Pryzby :
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 12:44:00PM -0800, Neto pr wrote:
>> Dear all
>>
>> Someone help me analyze the two execution plans below (Explain ANALYZE
>> used), is the query 9 of TPC-H benchmark [1].
>>
>> I'm using a server HP Intel Xeon 2.8GHz/4-core - Mem
Thanks for the reply.
I'll try upload the execution plan with Explain (analyse, buffer) for
website: https://explain.depesz.com/
I'm make an experiment for a scientific research and this is what I
find strange, explaining better, strange HDD performance far outweigh
the performance of an SSD.
Do
On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 12:44:00PM -0800, Neto pr wrote:
> Dear all
>
> Someone help me analyze the two execution plans below (Explain ANALYZE
> used), is the query 9 of TPC-H benchmark [1].
>
> I'm using a server HP Intel Xeon 2.8GHz/4-core - Memory 8GB HDD SAS 320GB
> 15 Krpm AND SSD Sansung EV
Dear all
Someone help me analyze the two execution plans below (Explain ANALYZE
used), is the query 9 of TPC-H benchmark [1].
I'm using a server HP Intel Xeon 2.8GHz/4-core - Memory 8GB HDD SAS 320GB
15 Krpm AND SSD Sansung EVO 500GB.
My DBMS parameters presents in postgresql.conf is default, but
22 matches
Mail list logo