Carlo Stonebanks <stonec.register@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > this is a full-time ETL system, with only a handful of actual > *users* and automated processes over 300 connections running > *import* programs 24/7 > Intel* Xeon* Processor X5560 (8M Cache, 2.80 GHz, 6.40 > GT/s Intel* QPI) x 2, dual quad core 48 GB RAM > RAID 10, 6 X 600 GB 15krpm SAS) So, eight cores and six spindles. You are probably going to see *much* better throughput if you route those 300 workers through about 22 connections. Use a connection pooler which limits active transactions to that and queues up requests to start a transaction. > Sys admin says that battery-backup RAID controller and > consequent write settings should have no impact on performance. With only six drives, I your OS, WAL files, indexes, and heap files are all in the same RAID? If so, your sys admin is wrong -- you want the controller configured for write-back (with automatic switch to write-through on low or failed battery, if possible). > max_connections = 300 Too high. Both throughput and latency should improve with correct use of a connection pooler. > shared_buffers = > 500MB # At 48GB of RAM, could we go to 2GB You might benefit from as much as 8GB, but only testing with your actual load will show for sure. > effective_cache_size = > 2457MB # Sys admin says assume 25% of 48GB Add together the shared_buffers setting and whatever the OS tells you is used for cache under your normal load. It's usually 75% of RM or higher. (NOTE: This doesn't cause any allocation of RAM; it's a hint to the cost calculations.) > work_mem = > 512MB # Complex reads are called many times a second Maybe, if you use the connection pooler as described above. Each connection can allocate this multiple times. So with 300 connections you could very easily start using 150GB of RAM in addition to your shared buffers; causing a swap storm followed by OOM crashes. If you stay with 300 connections this *must* be reduced by at least an order of magnitude. > # from each connection, so what should this be? > maintenance_work_mem = > 256MB # Should this be bigger - 1GB at least? I'd go to 1 or 2 GB. > checkpoint_segments = > 128 # There is lots of write activity; this is high OK > # but could it be higher? IMO, there's unlikely to be much benefit beyond that. > #checkpoint_completion_target not set; > # Recommendation appears to be .9 for our 128 checkpoint segments 0.9 is probably a good idea. > default_statistics_target = > 200 # Deprecated? Depends on your data. The default is 100. You might want to leave that in general and boost it for specific columns where you find it is needed. Higher values improve estimates and can lead to better query plans, but boost ANALYZE times and query planning time. > # What is the metric for wal_buffers setting? > wal_buffers = > 4MB # Looks low, recommendation appears to be 16MB. 16MB is good. > # Is it really "set it and forget it"? Yeah. > #synchronous_commit not set; > > # Recommendation is to turn this off and leave fsync on If this is off, it makes lack of write-back on the controller a lot less painful. Even with write-back it can improve performance some. It does mean that on a crash you can lose some committed transactions (typically less than a second's worth), but you will still have database integrity. > #fsync not set; > > # Recommendation is to leave this on Unless you want to rebuild your database from scratch or restore from backup on an OS crash, leave this on. > #wal_level not set; > > # Do we only needed for replication? The lowest level just supports crash recovery. The next level supports archiving, for recovery from a PITR-style backup. The third level is needed to support hot standby (a replicated server on which you can run targets as it is updated). > # The issue of vacuum/analyze is a tricky one. > # Data imports are running 24/7. One the DB is seeded, the vast > # majority of write activity is updates, and not to indexed > # columns. Deletions are vary rare. > vacuum_cost_delay = > 20ms You could try that. I would monitor for bloat and make things more aggressive if needed. If you are not vacuuming aggressively enough, performance will slowly degrade. If you let it go too far, recovery can be a lot of work. > # The background writer has not been addressed at all. > # Can our particular setup benefit from changing the bgwriter > # values? Probably not. If you find that your interactive users have periods where queries seem to "freeze" for a few minutes at a time and then return to normal levels of performance, you might need to make this more aggressive. -Kevin -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
