From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Bort, Paul" <pbort(at)tmwsystems(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Adding a pgbench run to buildfarm |
Date: | 2006-07-24 04:06:30 |
Message-ID: | 790.1153713990@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
"Bort, Paul" <pbort(at)tmwsystems(dot)com> writes:
> Andrew said I should solicit opinions as to what parameters to use. A
> cursory search through the archives led me to pick a scaling factor of
> 10, 5 users, and 100 transactions.
100 transactions seems barely enough to get through startup transients.
Maybe 1000 would be good.
I think the hard part of this is the reporting process. How do we
track how performance varies over time? It doesn't seem very useful
to compare different buildfarm members, but a longitudinal display of
performance on a single buildfarm machine over time would be cool.
(I'm still missing Mark Wong's daily OSDL performance reports :-()
Actually the $64 question here is whether we trust pgbench as the
standard performance test ...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-07-24 04:08:13 | Re: why toast tables are not reindexed while clustering? |
Previous Message | Joe Conway | 2006-07-24 03:57:14 | Values list-of-targetlists patch for comments (was Re: [HACKERS] 8.2 features?) |