| From: | Scott Marlowe <smarlowe(at)g2switchworks(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Kavan, Dan (IMS)" <KavanD(at)imsweb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: benchmarks with pgbench |
| Date: | 2005-01-24 19:33:28 |
| Message-ID: | 1106595208.16640.112.camel@state.g2switchworks.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Mon, 2005-01-24 at 13:19, Kavan, Dan (IMS) wrote:
> I hate to admit this publically, but I've been reading my results
> backwards.
>
> I was getting 100 tps on Solaris - postgres 64 bit and 300 tps on SUSE
> postgres both x86-64.
> So, 300 is better than 100 right? I was reading it backwards.
> I was thinking 300 was the actual speed to process a certain amount of
> transactions, but actually the x86-64 system is performing better than
> all, not worse.
>
> ~Dj
>
>
>
> Yes, they are both running on the same hardware - NAS.
Yep, 300 is better than 100. Glad to hear it.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Inpreet Singh | 2005-01-25 04:56:25 | Restore postgres database problem |
| Previous Message | Kavan, Dan (IMS) | 2005-01-24 19:19:18 | Re: benchmarks with pgbench |