| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Fork-based version of pgbench |
| Date: | 2005-12-02 00:23:30 |
| Message-ID: | 18325.1133483010@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Now that I've fixed the silly mistake in the fork-based version of
pgbench,
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-12/msg00017.php
I'm seeing it consistently outperform the CVS-tip version by about 5%.
I get about 700 tps versus 670 tps; meanwhile "top" reports that idle
CPU percentage drops from around 15% to around 5%. So I'm thinking
it may be worthwhile to fix the portability issues (ie, provide a
thread-based variant for Windows) and make it the standard version.
It's not so much that I want to inflate the measurements, as that
leaving 10% of the CPU on the table reduces pgbench's usefulness as
a way of stress-testing the backend.
The test case I'm looking at is on a dual Xeon, EM64T, hyperthreading
enabled (hence, 4 logical CPUs), running Fedora Core 4. Database
parameters are stock except these changes to minimize I/O:
fsync = off
shared_buffers = 50000
checkpoint_segments = 30
Database is initialized with "pgbench -i -s 10 bench" and then tested
with "pgbench -c 10 -t 3000 bench"; I usually do three runs and take
the median to have a trustworthy number.
It'd be interesting to find out if other people can get similar results
on other platforms.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-02 00:37:04 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add comments about why errno is |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-12-01 22:33:32 | Re: Improving count(*) |