Re: Postgres Benchmark Results

From: "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
To: Zoltan Boszormenyi <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Cc: PFC <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Postgres Benchmark Results
Date: 2007-05-21 21:01:25
Message-ID: 20070521210125.GM62346@nasby.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 08:00:25PM +0200, Zoltan Boszormenyi wrote:
> I also went into benchmarking mode last night for my own
> amusement when I read on the linux-kernel ML that
> NCQ support for nForce5 chips was released.
> I tried current PostgreSQL 8.3devel CVS.
> pgbench over local TCP connection with
> 25 clients and 3000 transacts/client gave me
> around 445 tps before applying NCQ support.
> 680 tps after.
>
> It went over 840 tps after adding HOT v7 patch,
> still with 25 clients. It topped at 1062 tps with 3-4 clients.
> I used a single Seagate 320GB SATA2 drive
> for the test, which only has less than 40GB free.
> So it's already at the end of the disk giving smaller
> transfer rates then at the beginning. Filesystem is ext3.
> Dual core Athlon64 X2 4200 in 64-bit mode.
> I have never seen such a performance before
> on a desktop machine.

I'd be willing to bet money that the drive is lying about commits/fsync.
Each transaction committed essentially requires one revolution of the
drive with pg_xlog on it, so a 15kRPM drive limits you to 250TPS.

BTW, PostgreSQL sees a big speed boost if you mount ext3 with the option
data=writeback. Note that doing that probably has a negative impact on
data recovery after a crash for non-database files.
--
Jim Nasby decibel(at)decibel(dot)org
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim C. Nasby 2007-05-21 21:05:22 Re: Postgres Benchmark Results
Previous Message PFC 2007-05-21 20:48:04 Re: 500 requests per second