From: | des(at)des(dot)no (=?iso-8859-1?q?Dag-Erling_Sm=F8rgrav?=) |
---|---|
To: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
Cc: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Regression tests |
Date: | 2005-05-04 07:05:18 |
Message-ID: | 86ll6v31zl.fsf@xps.des.no |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> writes:
> Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
> > It doesn't stress the system anywhere near enough to reveal bugs in,
> > say, the shared memory or semaphore code.
> I agree -- I think we definitely need more tests for the concurrent
> behavior of the system.
Quite, but in the meantime, a good benchmark should stress the system
enough to cause crashes, lockups or at least incorrect results if a
bug is introduced in the shared memory or semaphore code, and will
definitely reveal any slowdowns introduced by new code, so my question
is: where can I find a good benchmark for PostgreSQL? Note that I
don't care about comparing PostgreSQL to other RDBMSes; I just want to
a) test PostgreSQL under high concurrent load and b) if possible,
measure the performance impact of a patch.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - des(at)des(dot)no
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2005-05-04 07:05:37 | Re: Interesting article on transactional algorithms includes |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2005-05-04 06:25:17 | Re: Regression tests |