Re: [HACKERS] Performance while loading data and indexing

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
To: Neil Conway <neilc@samurai.com>
Cc: shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Date: 2002-09-26T20:45:54Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers, pgsql-performance, pgsql-general
Neil Conway wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > The paper does recommend ext3, but the differences between file systems
> > are very small.
> 
> Well, I only did a very rough benchmark (a few runs of pgbench), but
> the results I found were drastically different: ext2 was significantly
> faster (~50%) than ext3-writeback, which was in turn significantly
> faster (~25%) than ext3-ordered.

Wow.  That leaves no good Linux file system alternatives.  PostgreSQL
just wants an ordinary file system that has reliable recovery from a
crash.

> > Also, though ext3 is slower, turning fsync off should make ext3 function
> > similar to ext2.
> 
> Why would that be?

I assumed it was the double fsync for the normal and journal that made
the journalling file systems slog.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073