From: | Ron <rjpeace(at)earthlink(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: New to PostgreSQL, performance considerations |
Date: | 2006-12-14 06:45:29 |
Message-ID: | E1GukLV-0006Ur-Gi@elasmtp-junco.atl.sa.earthlink.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Benchmarks, like any other SW, need modernizing and updating from time to time.
Given the multi-core CPU approach to higher performance as the
current fad in CPU architecture, we need a benchmark that is appropriate.
If SPEC feels it is appropriate to rev their benchmark suite
regularly, we probably should as well.
Ron Peacetree
At 12:44 AM 12/14/2006, Tom Lane wrote:
>"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 18:36 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >> Mostly, though, pgbench just gives the I/O system a workout. It's not a
> >> really good general workload.
>
> > It also will not utilize all cpus on a many cpu machine. We recently
> > found that the only way to *really* test with pgbench was to actually
> > run 4+ copies of pgbench at the same time.
>
>The pgbench app itself becomes the bottleneck at high transaction
>rates. Awhile back I rewrote it to improve its ability to issue
>commands concurrently, but then desisted from submitting the
>changes --- if we change the app like that, future numbers would
>be incomparable to past ones, which sort of defeats the purpose of a
>benchmark no?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gregory S. Williamson | 2006-12-14 06:49:05 | Re: New to PostgreSQL, performance considerations |
Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2006-12-14 06:39:00 | Re: File Systems Compared |