| From: | Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, 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 06:11:11 |
| Message-ID: | 274FEBE6-C248-482C-AC27-A0369EC9812C@seespotcode.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Dec 14, 2006, at 14:44 , Tom Lane wrote:
> 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?
At the same time, if the current pgbench isn't the tool we want to
use, is this kind of backward comparison going to hinder any move to
improve it? It sounds like there's quite a bit of room for
improvement in pg_bench, and in my opinion we should move forward to
make an improved tool, one that measures what we want to measure. And
while comparison with past results might not be possible, there
remains the possibility of rerunning the improved pgbench on previous
systems, I should think.
Michael Glaesemann
grzm seespotcode net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2006-12-14 06:39:00 | Re: File Systems Compared |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-14 05:44:56 | Re: New to PostgreSQL, performance considerations |