Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [PERFORM] pgbench to the MAXINT

From: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Euler Taveira de Oliveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com>
Cc: Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] pgbench to the MAXINT
Date: 2011-02-07 16:03:42
Message-ID: 4D5017DE.90404@2ndquadrant.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-performance
The update on the work to push towards a bigger pgbench is that I now 
have the patch running and generating databases larger than any 
previously possible scale:

$ time pgbench -i -s 25000 pgbench
...
2500000000 tuples done.
...
real    258m46.350s
user    14m41.970s
sys    0m21.310s

$ psql -d pgbench -c "select 
pg_size_pretty(pg_relation_size('pgbench_accounts'));"
 pg_size_pretty
----------------
 313 GB

$ psql -d pgbench -c "select 
pg_size_pretty(pg_relation_size('pgbench_accounts_pkey'));"
 pg_size_pretty
----------------
 52 GB

$ time psql -d pgbench -c "select count(*) from pgbench_accounts"
   count   
------------
 2500000000

real    18m48.363s
user    0m0.010s
sys    0m0.000s

The only thing wrong with the patch sent already needed to reach this 
point was this line:

     for (k = 0; k < naccounts * scale; k++)

Which needed a (int64) cast for the multiplied value in the middle there.

Unfortunately the actual test itself doesn't run yet.  Every line I see 
when running the SELECT-only test says:

client 0 sending SELECT abalance FROM pgbench_accounts WHERE aid = 1;

So something about the updated random generation code isn't quite right 
yet.  Now that I have this monster built, I'm going to leave it on the 
server until I can sort that out, which hopefully will finish up in the 
next day or so.

-- 
Greg Smith   2ndQuadrant US    greg(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com   Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support  www.2ndQuadrant.us
"PostgreSQL 9.0 High Performance": http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/books


In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Scott MarloweDate: 2011-02-07 18:42:02
Subject: Re: Really really slow select count(*)
Previous:From: felixDate: 2011-02-07 15:05:07
Subject: Re: Really really slow select count(*)

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-02-07 16:12:07
Subject: Re: Varlena and binary
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2011-02-07 16:01:52
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: remove tags.

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group