From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff <threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Sun performance - Major discovery! |
Date: | 2003-10-08 14:52:39 |
Message-ID: | 1065624759.377.20.camel@tokyo |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 08:36, Jeff wrote:
> So here's the results using my load tester (single connection per beater,
> repeats the query 1000 times with different input each time (we'll get
> ~20k rows back), the query is a common query around here.
What is the query?
> Linux - 1x - 35 seconds, 20x - 180 seconds
"20x" means 20 concurrent testing processes, right?
> Sun - gcc - 1x 60 seconds 20x 245 seconds
> Sun - sunsoft defaults - 1x 52 seonds 20x [similar to gcc most likely]
> Sun - sunsoft -fast - 1x 28 seconds 20x 164 seconds
Interesting (and surprising that the performance differential is that
large, to me at least). Can you tell if the performance gain comes from
an improvement in a particular subsystem? (i.e. could you get a profile
of Sun/gcc and compare it with Sun/sunsoft).
-Neil
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-10-08 14:56:30 | Re: [HACKERS] Cannot dump/restore text value \N |
Previous Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2003-10-08 14:52:25 | Re: Disabling function validation |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2003-10-08 14:54:24 | Re: Speeding up Aggregates |
Previous Message | Andrew Sullivan | 2003-10-08 14:48:55 | Re: Sun performance - Major discovery! |