Re: Postgres Benchmark Results

From: PFC <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com>
To: "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Postgres Benchmark Results
Date: 2007-05-22 10:10:03
Message-ID: op.tsp3u1becigqcu@apollo13
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

> Note that while the average hits/s between 100 and 500 is over 600 tps
> for
> Postgres there is a consistent smattering of plot points spread all the
> way
> down to 200 tps, well below the 400-500 tps that MySQL is getting.

Yes, these are due to checkpointing, mostly.
Also, note that a real forum would not insert 100 posts/s, so it would
not feel this effect. But in order to finish the benchmark in a correct
amount of time, we have to push on the inserts.

> Some of those are undoubtedly caused by things like checkpoints and
> vacuum
> runs. Hopefully the improvements that are already in the pipeline will
> reduce
> them.

I am re-running it with other tuning, notably cost-based vacuum delay and
less frequent checkpoints, and it is a *lot* smoother.
These take a full night to run, so I'll post more results when I have
usefull stuff to show.
This has proven to be a very interesting trip to benchmarkland...

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message PFC 2007-05-22 10:14:48 Re: Key/Value reference table generation: INSERT/UPDATE performance
Previous Message valgog 2007-05-22 10:00:41 Re: Key/Value reference table generation: INSERT/UPDATE performance