From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | jihuang <jihuang(at)iis(dot)sinica(dot)edu(dot)tw> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers list <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: FYI , Intel CC and PostgreSQL , benchmark by pgsql |
Date: | 2004-01-15 15:10:01 |
Message-ID: | 22093.1074179401@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
jihuang <jihuang(at)iis(dot)sinica(dot)edu(dot)tw> writes:
> I have a new server and some time to do an interesting simple benchmark.
> Compile PostgreSQL 7.4.1R by gcc3.2 and Intel CC 8.0 , and use pgbench
> to evaluate any difference..
In my experience, a 10% difference in pgbench results is below the noise
level :-(. And when you only run 300 transactions, the results are too
unrepeatable even to be worth posting.
If you had run, say, 10000-transaction tests and averaged the results
over a couple dozen runs, the mean and standard deviation of those
results might be enough data to tell something.
BTW, when you use a number of clients greater than the scaling
factor, what you're measuring is mostly contention artifacts ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2004-01-15 15:19:30 | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Microsoft releses Services for Unix |
Previous Message | ohp | 2004-01-15 14:49:20 | set search_path and pg_dumpall |