From: | Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh(dot)2007(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pgbench - compute & show latency consistently |
Date: | 2016-09-22 11:07:53 |
Message-ID: | CAGz5QCKixmkSQeeU1F+Nnwesq+zh5h6AAqgsogtCbDT61va_2A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 6:53 PM, Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> wrote:
> In front of the tps line. Well, the performance displayed could also be
> improved... On my dual core SSD laptop I just got:
>
> sh> ./pgbench -c 10 -t 1000
> starting vacuum...end.
> transaction type: <builtin: TPC-B (sort of)>
> scaling factor: 100
> query mode: simple
> number of clients: 10
> number of threads: 1
> number of transactions per client: 1000
> number of transactions actually processed: 10000/10000
> latency average = 9.527 ms
> tps = 1049.665115 (including connections establishing)
> tps = 1049.890194 (excluding connections establishing)
>
> Which is about 10 times better.
Yes, you are right. In the documentation, the above example has not
been updated across different pg versions. Although this is just an
example, it should reflect the current performance.
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Yury Zhuravlev | 2016-09-22 12:02:55 | Re: File system operations. |
Previous Message | Rushabh Lathia | 2016-09-22 10:48:12 | Re: Confusing docs about GetForeignUpperPaths in fdwhandler.sgml |