Re: [HACKERS] Re: v7.1b4 bad performance

From: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us
Cc: hannu(at)tm(dot)ee, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: v7.1b4 bad performance
Date: 2001-02-23 16:13:32
Message-ID: 20010224011332M.t-ishii@sra.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers

> I didn't much like that approach to altering the test, since it also
> means that all the clients are working with separate tables and hence
> not able to share read I/O; that doesn't seem like it's the same
> benchmark at all. What would make more sense to me is to increase the
> number of rows in the branches table.
>
> Right now, at the default "scale factor" of 1, pgbench makes tables of
> these sizes:
>
> accounts 100000
> branches 1
> history 0 (filled during test)
> tellers 10
>
> It seems to me that the branches table should have at least 10 to 100
> entries, and tellers about 10 times whatever branches is. 100000
> accounts rows seems enough though.

Those numbers are defined in the TPC-B spec. But pgbench is not an
official test tool anyway, so you could modify it if you like.
That is the benefit of the open source:-)
--
Tatsuo Ishii

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Paul Huppe 2001-02-23 16:29:51 Re: v7.0.3 Regress Tests Errors
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-02-23 15:57:35 Re: v7.0.3 Regress Tests Errors

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-02-23 16:32:21 CommitDelay performance improvement
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-02-23 15:53:11 Re: [HACKERS] Re: v7.1b4 bad performance