From: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> |
---|---|
To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: pgbench cpu overhead (was Re: lazy vxid locks, v1) |
Date: | 2011-06-14 20:05:58 |
Message-ID: | 4DF7BF26.8070101@kaltenbrunner.cc |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 06/14/2011 02:27 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
> <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> wrote:
> ...
>>
>>
>> so it seems that sysbench is actually significantly less overhead than
>> pgbench and the lower throughput at the higher conncurency seems to be
>> cause by sysbench being able to stress the backend even more than
>> pgbench can.
>
> Hi Stefan,
>
> pgbench sends each query (per connection) and waits for the reply
> before sending another.
>
> Do we know whether sysbench does that, or if it just stuffs the
> kernel's IPC buffer full of queries without synchronously waiting for
> individual replies?
>
> I can't get sysbench to "make" for me, or I'd strace in single client
> mode and see what kind of messages are going back and forth.
yeah sysbench compiled from a release tarball needs some
autoconf/makefile hackery to get running on a modern system - but I can
provide you with the data you are interested in if you tell me exactly
what you are looking for...
Stefan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-06-14 20:11:37 | Re: Polecat "quit unexpectdly" |
Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2011-06-14 20:00:31 | Re: Detailed documentation for external calls (threading, shared resources etc) |