Hi All,
I've been tasked to evaluate PG as a possible replacement of our MS SQL 2000 solution. Our solution is 100% stored procedure/function centric. It's a report generation system whose sole task is to produce text files filled with processed data that is post-processed by a secondary system. Basically options are selected via a web interface and all these parameters are passed unto the stored procedure and then the stored procedure would run and in the process call other stored procedures until eventually a single formatted text file is produced.
I decided on Fedora Core 7 and the 8.3 Beta release of Enterprise DB PostgreSQL. I decided to port 1 stored procedure plus it's several support stored procedures into pl/pgsql from T-SQL and compare the performance by measuring how long each system takes to produce the text file. For this test, the output to the text file was discarded and the stored procedure/function would end once the final temporary table is filled with the information that is eventually dumped into the text file.
Windows 2000 Professional + MSDE (/MS SQL) Box vs. FC7 + EnterpriseDB PG Box
Note that both boxes have EXACTLY the same hardware (not VMWARE or anything)
AMD X2 3800
2 G RAM DDR 400
80 G Barracuda Sata
The data was copied to the Linux box and checked lightly for consistency versus the windows box (number of tables / columns and records) and they all match. After data transfer to the Linux Box, I ran REINDEX and ANALYZE.
For the actual run the following tables were used and I'm displaying the results of analyze.
INFO: analyzing "public.AreaDefn"
INFO: "AreaDefn": scanned 15 of 15 pages, containing 2293 live rows and 0 dead rows; 2293 rows in sample, 2293 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.AreaDefn2"
INFO: "AreaDefn2": scanned 30 of 30 pages, containing 3439 live rows and 0 dead rows; 3000 rows in sample, 3439 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.Areas"
INFO: "Areas": scanned 2 of 2 pages, containing 164 live rows and 0 dead rows; 164 rows in sample, 164 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.Brands"
INFO: "Brands": scanned 1 of 1 pages, containing 11 live rows and 0 dead rows; 11 rows in sample, 11 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.Categories"
INFO: "Categories": scanned 1 of 1 pages, containing 26 live rows and 0 dead rows; 26 rows in sample, 26 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.CategoryDefn"
INFO: "CategoryDefn": scanned 1 of 1 pages, containing 133 live rows and 0 dead rows; 133 rows in sample, 133 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.CategoryDefn2"
INFO: "CategoryDefn2": scanned 2 of 2 pages, containing 211 live rows and 0 dead rows; 211 rows in sample, 211 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.CategorySets"
INFO: "CategorySets": scanned 1 of 1 pages, containing 3 live rows and 0 dead rows; 3 rows in sample, 3 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.CATemplateGroup"
INFO: analyzing "public.Channels"
INFO: "Channels": scanned 1 of 1 pages, containing 7 live rows and 0 dead rows; 7 rows in sample, 7 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.ClientCodes"
INFO: analyzing "public.Clients"
INFO: "Clients": scanned 7 of 7 pages, containing 366 live rows and 0 dead rows; 366 rows in sample, 366 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.Customers"
INFO: "Customers": scanned 2 of 2 pages, containing 129 live rows and 0 dead rows; 129 rows in sample, 129 estimated total rows
NFO: analyzing "public.Databases"
INFO: "Databases": scanned 1 of 1 pages, containing 1 live rows and 0 dead rows; 1 rows in sample, 1 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.DataSources"
INFO: "DataSources": scanned 1 of 1 pages, containing 8 live rows and 0 dead rows; 8 rows in sample, 8 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.DateToWeekConversion"
INFO: "DateToWeekConversion": scanned 4 of 4 pages, containing 371 live rows and 0 dead rows; 371 rows in sample, 371 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.Divisions"
INFO: "Divisions": scanned 1 of 1 pages, containing 1 live rows and 0 dead rows; 1 rows in sample, 1 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.MetricTable"
INFO: "MetricTable": scanned 1 of 1 pages, containing 48 live rows and 0 dead rows; 48 rows in sample, 48 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.Offtake"
INFO: "Offtake": scanned 3000 of 13824 pages, containing 141000 live rows and 0 dead rows; 3000 rows in sample, 649728 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.SKUs"
INFO: "SKUs": scanned 3 of 3 pages, containing 73 live rows and 0 dead rows; 73 rows in sample, 73 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.SMSDefaults"
INFO: "SMSDefaults": scanned 1 of 1 pages, containing 43 live rows and 0 dead rows; 43 rows in sample, 43 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.StandardPeriods"
INFO: "StandardPeriods": scanned 1 of 1 pages, containing 8 live rows and 0 dead rows; 8 rows in sample, 8 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.StandardUnits"
INFO: "StandardUnits": scanned 1 of 1 pages, containing 9 live rows and 0 dead rows; 9 rows in sample, 9 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.SubDataSources"
INFO: "SubDataSources": scanned 0 of 0 pages, containing 0 live rows and 0 dead rows; 0 rows in sample, 0 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.VolumeUnitDefn"
INFO: "VolumeUnitDefn": scanned 0 of 0 pages, containing 0 live rows and 0 dead rows; 0 rows in sample, 0 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.VolumeUnits"
INFO: "VolumeUnits": scanned 0 of 0 pages, containing 0 live rows and 0 dead rows; 0 rows in sample, 0 estimated total rows
as you can see the biggest one only has 600k records.
Here are the settings used for postgresql.conf ( will just list those that were modified)
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------
# RESOURCE USAGE (except WAL)
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------
# - Memory -
#shared_buffers = 32MB
shared_buffers = 128MB # min 128kB or max_connections*16kB
# (change requires restart)
#temp_buffers = 8MB # min 800kB
temp_buffers = 32MB
#max_prepared_transactions = 5 # can be 0 or more
# (change requires restart)
#max_prepared_transactions = 20
# Note: increasing max_prepared_transactions costs ~600 bytes of shared memory
# per transaction slot, plus lock space (see max_locks_per_transaction).
#work_mem = 1MB # min 64kB
work_mem = 2MB
#maintenance_work_mem = 16MB # min 1MB
maintenance_work_mem = 32MB
#max_stack_depth = 2MB # min 100kB
Everything else was kept as is (given by the installer).
/etc/sysctl.conf settings below :
kernel.shmmax = 1536000000
kernel.msgmni = 1024
fs.file-max = 8192
kernel.sem = "250 32000 32 1024"
The main stored function has approximately 1200 lines of pl/pgsql code. While it is running it calls 7 other support stored functions plus a small view.
The test basically was run two ways :
a) for the linux box, we used PG Admin III to run the core stored function and in the windows box we used query analyzer.
b) Created a small vb program that just calls the stored function for both boxes.
Since I'm a total newbie in PG, I was expecting dismal results in the initial run since our port of the code would not be optimized for PG and sure enough I got them.
Windows 2k Pro + MSDE - 4 seconds
FC7 + postgresql-8.3-beta3 - 77 seconds
thinking that maybe the GUI of FC7 is hampering the load, I decided to run it again using runlevel 3. The result was approximately a 1-2 % gain on the FC7 but that is insignificant compared to the discrepancy I'm measuring so I decided to just use the w/GUI results. We noticed that the CPU for the linux box was tapped out (at least one of the cores) nearly 100% for the duration of the process. There was plenty of ram available and there was little to no disk access during the entire run.
I decided to further normalize the test and make the OS constant.
Windows 2k Pro + MSDE - 4 seconds
Windows 2k Pro + postgresql-8.3-beta3 - 54 seconds
Turns out that for our code, running PG in windows is faster significantly. This was a surprise coming from all the research on the internet but it does jive with the results of this guy :
http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=179064
Note that this guy used MS SQL 2005. Which we have proved to be 2-3 times slower than MS SQL 2000 and hence our research into other options. :)
Anyways I'd like to break up this request/begging for help into two parts.
1) First would be settings of postgresql.conf. Did I do it correctly? The sample data is so small....I based my settings on the recommendations researched for data centers.
2) Code optimization which I plan to start in another email thread since the discussions there would be more detailed.
Would it also make sense to optimize (as far as possible) everything (including the code) for windows first? The target here would be a linux OS but since the discrepancy is so big...the unified Windows OS might be a good place to start for now.
Many Thanks in advance.
Regards
I've been tasked to evaluate PG as a possible replacement of our MS SQL 2000 solution. Our solution is 100% stored procedure/function centric. It's a report generation system whose sole task is to produce text files filled with processed data that is post-processed by a secondary system. Basically options are selected via a web interface and all these parameters are passed unto the stored procedure and then the stored procedure would run and in the process call other stored procedures until eventually a single formatted text file is produced.
I decided on Fedora Core 7 and the 8.3 Beta release of Enterprise DB PostgreSQL. I decided to port 1 stored procedure plus it's several support stored procedures into pl/pgsql from T-SQL and compare the performance by measuring how long each system takes to produce the text file. For this test, the output to the text file was discarded and the stored procedure/function would end once the final temporary table is filled with the information that is eventually dumped into the text file.
Windows 2000 Professional + MSDE (/MS SQL) Box vs. FC7 + EnterpriseDB PG Box
Note that both boxes have EXACTLY the same hardware (not VMWARE or anything)
AMD X2 3800
2 G RAM DDR 400
80 G Barracuda Sata
The data was copied to the Linux box and checked lightly for consistency versus the windows box (number of tables / columns and records) and they all match. After data transfer to the Linux Box, I ran REINDEX and ANALYZE.
For the actual run the following tables were used and I'm displaying the results of analyze.
INFO: analyzing "public.AreaDefn"
INFO: "AreaDefn": scanned 15 of 15 pages, containing 2293 live rows and 0 dead rows; 2293 rows in sample, 2293 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.AreaDefn2"
INFO: "AreaDefn2": scanned 30 of 30 pages, containing 3439 live rows and 0 dead rows; 3000 rows in sample, 3439 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.Areas"
INFO: "Areas": scanned 2 of 2 pages, containing 164 live rows and 0 dead rows; 164 rows in sample, 164 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.Brands"
INFO: "Brands": scanned 1 of 1 pages, containing 11 live rows and 0 dead rows; 11 rows in sample, 11 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.Categories"
INFO: "Categories": scanned 1 of 1 pages, containing 26 live rows and 0 dead rows; 26 rows in sample, 26 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.CategoryDefn"
INFO: "CategoryDefn": scanned 1 of 1 pages, containing 133 live rows and 0 dead rows; 133 rows in sample, 133 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.CategoryDefn2"
INFO: "CategoryDefn2": scanned 2 of 2 pages, containing 211 live rows and 0 dead rows; 211 rows in sample, 211 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.CategorySets"
INFO: "CategorySets": scanned 1 of 1 pages, containing 3 live rows and 0 dead rows; 3 rows in sample, 3 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.CATemplateGroup"
INFO: analyzing "public.Channels"
INFO: "Channels": scanned 1 of 1 pages, containing 7 live rows and 0 dead rows; 7 rows in sample, 7 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.ClientCodes"
INFO: analyzing "public.Clients"
INFO: "Clients": scanned 7 of 7 pages, containing 366 live rows and 0 dead rows; 366 rows in sample, 366 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.Customers"
INFO: "Customers": scanned 2 of 2 pages, containing 129 live rows and 0 dead rows; 129 rows in sample, 129 estimated total rows
NFO: analyzing "public.Databases"
INFO: "Databases": scanned 1 of 1 pages, containing 1 live rows and 0 dead rows; 1 rows in sample, 1 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.DataSources"
INFO: "DataSources": scanned 1 of 1 pages, containing 8 live rows and 0 dead rows; 8 rows in sample, 8 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.DateToWeekConversion"
INFO: "DateToWeekConversion": scanned 4 of 4 pages, containing 371 live rows and 0 dead rows; 371 rows in sample, 371 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.Divisions"
INFO: "Divisions": scanned 1 of 1 pages, containing 1 live rows and 0 dead rows; 1 rows in sample, 1 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.MetricTable"
INFO: "MetricTable": scanned 1 of 1 pages, containing 48 live rows and 0 dead rows; 48 rows in sample, 48 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.Offtake"
INFO: "Offtake": scanned 3000 of 13824 pages, containing 141000 live rows and 0 dead rows; 3000 rows in sample, 649728 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.SKUs"
INFO: "SKUs": scanned 3 of 3 pages, containing 73 live rows and 0 dead rows; 73 rows in sample, 73 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.SMSDefaults"
INFO: "SMSDefaults": scanned 1 of 1 pages, containing 43 live rows and 0 dead rows; 43 rows in sample, 43 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.StandardPeriods"
INFO: "StandardPeriods": scanned 1 of 1 pages, containing 8 live rows and 0 dead rows; 8 rows in sample, 8 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.StandardUnits"
INFO: "StandardUnits": scanned 1 of 1 pages, containing 9 live rows and 0 dead rows; 9 rows in sample, 9 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.SubDataSources"
INFO: "SubDataSources": scanned 0 of 0 pages, containing 0 live rows and 0 dead rows; 0 rows in sample, 0 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.VolumeUnitDefn"
INFO: "VolumeUnitDefn": scanned 0 of 0 pages, containing 0 live rows and 0 dead rows; 0 rows in sample, 0 estimated total rows
INFO: analyzing "public.VolumeUnits"
INFO: "VolumeUnits": scanned 0 of 0 pages, containing 0 live rows and 0 dead rows; 0 rows in sample, 0 estimated total rows
as you can see the biggest one only has 600k records.
Here are the settings used for postgresql.conf ( will just list those that were modified)
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------
# RESOURCE USAGE (except WAL)
#---------------------------------------------------------------------------
# - Memory -
#shared_buffers = 32MB
shared_buffers = 128MB # min 128kB or max_connections*16kB
# (change requires restart)
#temp_buffers = 8MB # min 800kB
temp_buffers = 32MB
#max_prepared_transactions = 5 # can be 0 or more
# (change requires restart)
#max_prepared_transactions = 20
# Note: increasing max_prepared_transactions costs ~600 bytes of shared memory
# per transaction slot, plus lock space (see max_locks_per_transaction).
#work_mem = 1MB # min 64kB
work_mem = 2MB
#maintenance_work_mem = 16MB # min 1MB
maintenance_work_mem = 32MB
#max_stack_depth = 2MB # min 100kB
Everything else was kept as is (given by the installer).
/etc/sysctl.conf settings below :
kernel.shmmax = 1536000000
kernel.msgmni = 1024
fs.file-max = 8192
kernel.sem = "250 32000 32 1024"
The main stored function has approximately 1200 lines of pl/pgsql code. While it is running it calls 7 other support stored functions plus a small view.
The test basically was run two ways :
a) for the linux box, we used PG Admin III to run the core stored function and in the windows box we used query analyzer.
b) Created a small vb program that just calls the stored function for both boxes.
Since I'm a total newbie in PG, I was expecting dismal results in the initial run since our port of the code would not be optimized for PG and sure enough I got them.
Windows 2k Pro + MSDE - 4 seconds
FC7 + postgresql-8.3-beta3 - 77 seconds
thinking that maybe the GUI of FC7 is hampering the load, I decided to run it again using runlevel 3. The result was approximately a 1-2 % gain on the FC7 but that is insignificant compared to the discrepancy I'm measuring so I decided to just use the w/GUI results. We noticed that the CPU for the linux box was tapped out (at least one of the cores) nearly 100% for the duration of the process. There was plenty of ram available and there was little to no disk access during the entire run.
I decided to further normalize the test and make the OS constant.
Windows 2k Pro + MSDE - 4 seconds
Windows 2k Pro + postgresql-8.3-beta3 - 54 seconds
Turns out that for our code, running PG in windows is faster significantly. This was a surprise coming from all the research on the internet but it does jive with the results of this guy :
http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=179064
Note that this guy used MS SQL 2005. Which we have proved to be 2-3 times slower than MS SQL 2000 and hence our research into other options. :)
Anyways I'd like to break up this request/begging for help into two parts.
1) First would be settings of postgresql.conf. Did I do it correctly? The sample data is so small....I based my settings on the recommendations researched for data centers.
2) Code optimization which I plan to start in another email thread since the discussions there would be more detailed.
Would it also make sense to optimize (as far as possible) everything (including the code) for windows first? The target here would be a linux OS but since the discrepancy is so big...the unified Windows OS might be a good place to start for now.
Many Thanks in advance.
Regards
