From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 8.2 is 30% better in pgbench than 8.3 |
Date: | 2007-07-21 17:30:22 |
Message-ID: | 347.1185039022@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I was little bit surprised. Is any reason for it?
Are you sure you're comparing apples to apples? In particular the
default autovacuuming setup is entirely different. With autovac off
I see 8.3 as faster than 8.2 in pgbench.
Also, remember a couple rules of thumb for choosing pgbench parameters:
keep -c less than the -s scale factor you used for pgbench -i (otherwise
you're mostly measuring update contention, because there are only -s
different rows in the branches table); and use -t at least 1000 or so
(otherwise startup transients are significant).
Note to all: we ***HAVE TO*** settle on some reasonable default
vacuum_cost_delay settings before we can ship 8.3. With no cost delay
and two or three workers active, 8.3's autovac does indeed send
performance into the tank.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2007-07-21 18:18:27 | Re: 8.2 is 30% better in pgbench than 8.3 |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2007-07-21 15:40:06 | 8.2 is 30% better in pgbench than 8.3 |