| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Alexander Staubo <alex(at)purefiction(dot)net>, Michael Stone <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: New to PostgreSQL, performance considerations |
| Date: | 2006-12-14 05:44:56 |
| Message-ID: | 15642.1166075096@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
"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?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Glaesemann | 2006-12-14 06:11:11 | Re: New to PostgreSQL, performance considerations |
| Previous Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2006-12-14 03:02:39 | Re: New to PostgreSQL, performance considerations |