Thanks for posting this interesting article! Do we know if timescale extension is available as well?
As in timescaledb? Or something else…?
Yes, as in timescaledb. Sorry for not be specific.
Benchmarking Postgres 17 vs. 18
11–20 of 68 posts
Re: Benchmarking Postgres 17 vs. 18
#12I was expecting `pg_dumpall` to get the `--format` option in v18,[0] but at the moment the docs say it's still only available in the development branch.[1]
Is anyone familiar with Postgres development able to give an update on the state of the feature? Is it planned for a future (18 or 19) release?
[0]: https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit...
[1]: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/app-pgdump.html#:~:tex...
Re: Benchmarking Postgres 17 vs. 18
#13The primary lesson I learned here was this:
If you care about performance, don't use network storage.
If you are using local nvme disk, then it does not matter if you are using Postgres 17 or 18. Performance is about the same. And significantly faster than network storage.
Re: Benchmarking Postgres 17 vs. 18
#14Afaict nothing in this benchmark will actually use AIO in 18. As of 18 there is aio reads for seq scans, bitmap scans, vacuum, and a few other utility commands. But the queries being run should normally be planned as index range scans. We're hoping to the the work for using AIO for index scans into 19, but it could work end up in 20, it's nontrivial. It's also worth noting that the default for data checksums has chan…
Then io_uring AIO mode underperformance is even more curious.
Re: Benchmarking Postgres 17 vs. 18
#15The primary lesson I learned here was this: If you care about performance, don't use network storage. If you are using local nvme disk, then it does not matter if you are using Postgres 17 or 18. Performance is about the same. And significantly faster than network storage.
But ephemeral and non-redundant.
Am I correct in that using local disk on any VPS has durability concerns?
Re: Benchmarking Postgres 17 vs. 18
#16The primary lesson I learned here was this: If you care about performance, don't use network storage. If you are using local nvme disk, then it does not matter if you are using Postgres 17 or 18. Performance is about the same. And significantly faster than network storage.
But ephemeral and non-redundant. Am I correct in that using local disk on any VPS has durability concerns?
Using a single disk has durability concerns. But I don't see why VPS vs dedicated server should matter much.
Re: Benchmarking Postgres 17 vs. 18
#17The primary lesson I learned here was this: If you care about performance, don't use network storage. If you are using local nvme disk, then it does not matter if you are using Postgres 17 or 18. Performance is about the same. And significantly faster than network storage.
But ephemeral and non-redundant. Am I correct in that using local disk on any VPS has durability concerns?
Sure. Till an extent. And if you run some mission-critical application, definitely.
But most applications run fine from local storage and can tolerate some downtime. They might even benefit from the improved performance. You can also fix the durability and disaster recovery concerns by setting up on RAID/ZFS and maintaining proper backups.
Re: Benchmarking Postgres 17 vs. 18
#18 > IOPS: 3,000
> IOPS: 300,000 for 551$ per month
just for reference with 4 consumer nvmes and raid10 and pciex16 you can easily do 3m IOPS for one time cost of like 1000$
in my current job we constantly have to rethink db queries/design because of cloud IOPS, and of course not having control over RDS page cache and numa.
every time I am woken up at night because a seemingly normal query all of the sudden goes beyond our IOPS budget and the WAL starts trashing, I seriously question my choices.
the whole cloud situation is just ridiculous.
Re: Benchmarking Postgres 17 vs. 18
#19The primary lesson I learned here was this: If you care about performance, don't use network storage. If you are using local nvme disk, then it does not matter if you are using Postgres 17 or 18. Performance is about the same. And significantly faster than network storage.
But ephemeral and non-redundant. Am I correct in that using local disk on any VPS has durability concerns?
Databases like Postgres have well established ways to handle that. And if you're setting up the DB yourself, you absolutely need to do backups anyway. And a replica on a different server.
Re: Benchmarking Postgres 17 vs. 18
#20> IOPS: 3,000 > IOPS: 300,000 for 551$ per month the cloud is ridiculous. just for reference with 4 consumer nvmes and raid10 and pciex16 you can easily do 3m IOPS for one time cost of like 1000$ in my current job we constantly have to rethink db queries/design because of cloud IOPS, and of course not having control over RDS page cache and numa. every time I am woken up at night because a seemingly normal query all o…
But now you need someone to deal with the hardware.