From: | Matthew O'Connor <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Alexander Staubo <alex(at)purefiction(dot)net>, Michael Stone <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: New to PostgreSQL, performance considerations |
Date: | 2006-12-14 16:16:14 |
Message-ID: | 458178CE.7020003@zeut.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>> On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 18:36 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
>>> Mostly, though, pgbench just gives the I/O system a workout. It's not a
>>> really good general workload.
>
>> It also will not utilize all cpus on a many cpu machine. We recently
>> found that the only way to *really* test with pgbench was to actually
>> run 4+ copies of pgbench at the same time.
>
> The pgbench app itself becomes the bottleneck at high transaction
> rates. Awhile back I rewrote it to improve its ability to issue
> commands concurrently, but then desisted from submitting the
> changes --- if we change the app like that, future numbers would
> be incomparable to past ones, which sort of defeats the purpose of a
> benchmark no?
What is to stop us from running the new pgbench against older versions
of PGSQL? Any stats taken from a run of pgbench a long time ago
probably aren't relevant against a modern test anyway as the underlying
hardware and OS are likely to have changed or been updated.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-14 16:19:00 | Re: Slow update with simple query |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-14 16:11:42 | Re: EXPLAIN ANALYZE on 8.2 |