Benchmarks, like any other SW, need modernizing and updating from time to time.
Given the multi-core CPU approach to higher performance as the
current fad in CPU architecture, we need a benchmark that is appropriate.
If SPEC feels it is appropriate to rev their benchmark suite
regularly, we probably should as well.
At 12:44 AM 12/14/2006, Tom Lane wrote:
>"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 18:36 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >> Mostly, though, pgbench just gives the I/O system a workout. It's not a
> >> really good general workload.
> > It also will not utilize all cpus on a many cpu machine. We recently
> > found that the only way to *really* test with pgbench was to actually
> > run 4+ copies of pgbench at the same time.
>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
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Gregory S. Williamson||Date: 2006-12-14 06:49:05|
|Subject: Re: New to PostgreSQL, performance considerations |
|Previous:||From: Jim Nasby||Date: 2006-12-14 06:39:00|
|Subject: Re: File Systems Compared|