Some additional tests run on my performance testing

Sean Chittenden seanc at
Thu Aug 28 11:16:45 PDT 2003

> > Did you look at any of the blocksize-related patches that have
> > been floating around?
> I tried his tests on a stock pgsql 7.3.4, twice with an 8K block
> filesystem and twice with a 16K block UFS2 filesystem and measured
> an improvement of about 4% for the 8K filesystem.  (Take this cum
> grano salis though, since this was an informal test and I don't have
> enough data to draw a statistically significant conclusion.)  It
> turns out that the tables in Bill's tests have no indices, so pgsql
> winds up doing practically nothing but sequential reads and
> sequential writes of entire tables.  A more typical database load
> would probably be characterized by mostly random access patterns and
> possibly more synchronous writes to the WAL log.

For the sake of eating my own advice and in an attempt to verify the
numbers you suggest above, I loaded a DB with 8k and 16K blocks
(translation: almost all write activities).

With 8K blocks:
15.188u 3.404s 7:12.27 4.2%     209+340k 1251+0io 0pf+0w
14.867u 3.686s 7:32.54 4.0%     201+327k 1252+0io 0pf+0w

avg wall clock sec to complete: 442

With 16K blocks:
15.192u 3.312s 6:44.43 4.5%     198+322k 1253+0io 0pf+0w
15.120u 3.330s 6:51.43 4.4%     205+334k 1254+0io 0pf+0w

avg wall clock sec to complete: 407

Which is different than what your results suggest, but I'll take the
35sec/8% speedup any day of the week and twice on Sunday.  Granted
these tests were done on my laptop and were 100% write, I'd expect
them to stay about the same across the board.  If someone wants to do
some good read tests, I'd be interested in those results.


Sean Chittenden

More information about the freebsd-performance mailing list