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