| From: | David Rees <drees76(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff <threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com>, "david(at)lang(dot)hm" <david(at)lang(dot)hm>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: SSD performance |
| Date: | 2009-02-03 18:26:09 |
| Message-ID: | 72dbd3150902031026t381d42dreeddcfa746526be3@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Jeff <threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org> wrote:
> Scalefactor 50, 10 clients: 900tps
>
> At scalefactor 50 the dataset fits well within memory, so I scaled it up.
>
> Scalefactor 1500: 10 clients: 420tps
>
> While some of us have arrays that can smash those numbers, that is crazy
> impressive for a plain old mirror pair. I also did not do much tweaking of
> PG itself.
>
> While I'm in the testing mood, are there some other tests folks would like
> me to try out?
How do the same benchmarks fair on regular rotating discs on the same
system? Ideally we'd have numbers for 7.2k and 10k disks to give us
some sort of idea of exactly how much faster we're talking here. Hey,
since you asked, right? ;-)
-Dave
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Carey | 2009-02-03 18:43:36 | Re: SSD performance |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-02-03 18:20:01 | Re: Deleting millions of rows |