| From: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: write scalability |
| Date: | 2011-07-26 16:33:04 |
| Message-ID: | CABOikdNRMZCGTc3YrNMxpAnpYDxaBn9aNC0-X+upfyGyQHuvOw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Pavan Deolasee
<pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> So many transactions trying to update a small set of rows in a table.
> Is that what we really want to measure ? My thinking is that we might
> see different result if they are updating different parts of the table
> and the transaction start/stop overhead is spread across few
> statements.
>
I think what I am suggesting is that the default pgbench test setup
would probably not give you a good scalability as number of clients
are increased and one reason could be the contention in the small
table. So it might be a good idea to get rid of that and see if we get
much better scalability and understand other bottlenecks.
Thanks,
Pavan
--
Pavan Deolasee
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-07-26 16:55:29 | Re: write scalability |
| Previous Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2011-07-26 16:29:21 | Re: write scalability |