From: | Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Georges Racinet <gracinet(at)anybox(dot)fr> |
Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pgbench help |
Date: | 2012-12-24 14:27:27 |
Message-ID: | 38E4DB9D-1003-4D0A-8CAD-E7E6041F65EE@gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Sent from my iPad
On 24-Dec-2012, at 17:15, Georges Racinet <gracinet(at)anybox(dot)fr> wrote:
> On 12/24/2012 12:32 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
>> On 12/24/2012 2:43 AM, Georges Racinet wrote:
>>> Make sure both servers aren't running at the same time
>>
>> why? its perfectly OK to ahve severla postgres servers running at
>> once, as long as they are on different port numbers. I generally use
>> 5432, 5433, 5434, etc for this. mostly for development, or for
>> migration, not so much on a production system where performance is
>> important.
>>
>>
> You're perfectly right. I'm used to have several clusters on the same
> host (application testing in my case).
> In this benchmark context, though, I just was being wary that they may
> interfere, For instance, I suppose that an autovacuum wakeup in one
> should lower performance results of the other.
>
> Sorry it that sounded more general than that.
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
Hi,
Thanks for the extensive discussion.
In my case,vacuum performance plays an important role. Hence, I shall run only one server at a time while profiling.
Thanks a ton,
Atri
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-12-24 15:01:02 | Re: Insert Assertion Failed in strcoll_l.c:112 |
Previous Message | Benoît Bidaine | 2012-12-24 11:51:31 | pg_ctl: could not start service "pgsql-8.2": error code 1063 |