| From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mark Davidson <mark(at)4each(dot)co(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | Vasilis Ventirozos <v(dot)ventirozos(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: INDEX Performance Issue |
| Date: | 2013-04-08 20:39:23 |
| Message-ID: | CAMkU=1wSyzRVraQhnSZ1bnUPGe7zZxofuuWJt5VQ0nDE7BWBoA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Mark Davidson <mark(at)4each(dot)co(dot)uk> wrote:
> Thanks for your response Vasillis. I've run pgbench on both machines
> `./pgbench -c 10 -t 10000 pgbench` getting 99.800650 tps on my local
> machine and 23.825332 tps on the server so quite a significant difference.
>
These results are almost certainly being driven by how fast your machines
can fsync the WAL data. The type of query you originally posted does not
care about that at all, so these results are not useful to you. You could
run the "pgbench -S", which is getting closer to the nature of the work
your original query does (but still not all that close).
Cheers,
Jeff
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Davidson | 2013-04-08 20:57:04 | Re: INDEX Performance Issue |
| Previous Message | Vasilis Ventirozos | 2013-04-08 20:28:08 | Re: INDEX Performance Issue |