| From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> |
| 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 00:27:15 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTi=A-TD9qhGjuYDCiav8QfhZwKPsNA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
Cheers,
Jeff
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2011-06-14 01:03:26 | Re: SSI patch renumbered existing 2PC resource managers?? |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-06-14 00:19:05 | Re: Why polecat and colugos are failing to build back branches |