Re: PSQL performance - TPS
Shital A <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.db.postgresql.performance |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAMp7vw9MZK8u-v5TqQWypwQUH3Geq364EH3WQyJ7XYZ7jQe-gQ@mail.gmail.com> |
On Thu, 1 Aug 2019, 23:58 Rick Otten, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 2:15 PM Andres Freund <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On 2019-08-01 23:36:33 +0530, Purav Chovatia wrote: >> > > If you've set synchronous_commit = off, and you still get only 1200 >> > > transactions/sec, something else is off. Are you sure you set that? >> > I am not very surprised with these results. However, what’s the disk >> type? >> > That can matter quite a bit. >> >> > Also a reminder that you should have a connection pooler in front of your > database such as PGBouncer. If you are churning a lot of connections you > could be hurting your throughput. > > > Hello, Yes, synchronous_commit is off on primary and standby. Primary, standby and clients are in same datacentre. Shared_buffers set to 25% of RAM , no much improvement if this is increased. Other params set are: Effective_cache_size 12GB Maintainance_work_mem 1GB Walk_buffers 16MB Effective_io_concurrency 200 Work_mem 5242kB Min_wal_size 2GB Max_wal_size 4GB Max_worker_processes 8 Max_parallel_workers_per_gather 8 Checkpoint_completion_target 0.9 Random_page_cost 1.1 We have not configured connection pooler. Number of coonections are under 20 for this testing. @Rick, 20k TPS on your system - is it with batching Want to know what configuration we are missing to achieve higher TPS. We are testing inserts on a simple table with just one text column. Thanks ! >