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...
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 |