Re: pgbench duration option

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pgbench duration option
Date: 2008-08-19 00:18:40
Message-ID: 8861.1219105120@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Greg Smith wrote:
>> Last time I tried to quantify the overhead of logging with timestamps on
>> I couldn't even measure its impact, it was lower than the usual pgbench
>> noise.

> There's a hardware deficiency on certain machines -- I think it's old
> ones. I don't know if machines that would currently be used in
> production would contain such a problem.

My understanding is that it's basically "cheap PC hardware" (with clock
interfaces based on old ISA bus specs) that has the issue in a
significant way. I wouldn't expect you to see it on a serious database
server. But lots of people still do development on cheap PC hardware,
which is why I think this is worth worrying about.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-08-19 00:29:42 Re: Patch: plan invalidation vs stored procedures
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-08-18 23:40:28 Re: Extending varlena