Re: Oracle vs PostgreSQL in real life

From: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)krosing(dot)net>
To: Jean-Paul ARGUDO <jean-paul(dot)argudo(at)idealx(dot)com>
Cc: Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, sdinot(at)idealx(dot)com, dbarth(at)idealx(dot)com
Subject: Re: Oracle vs PostgreSQL in real life
Date: 2002-02-27 21:08:37
Message-ID: 1014844117.2383.78.camel@rh72.home.ee
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 2002-02-27 at 23:21, Jean-Paul ARGUDO wrote:
> > What was the postgresql.conf set to ?
>
> I put parameters in another mail, please watch for it.
>
> > > The "test" is a big batch that computes stuffs in the database.
> > Could you run this batch in smaller chunks to see if PG is slow from the
> > start or does it slow down as it goes ?
>
> The batch starts really fast and past 2 minuts, begins to slow down dramatically
> and never stops to get slower and slower
>

I did a small test run on my home computer (Celeron 350, IDE disks,
untuned 7.2 on RH 7.2)

I made a small table (int,text) with primary key on int and filled it
with values 1-512 for int.

then I ran a python script that updated 10000 random rows in patches of
10 updates.

the first run took

a) 1.28 - 112 tps

as it used seq scans

then I ran VACUUM ANALYZE and next runs were

1. 24 sec - 416 tps
2. 43 sec - 232 tps
3. 71 sec - 140 tps

then I tied the same query and run vacuum in another window manually
each 5 sec.

the result was similar to 1 - 24.5 sec

running vacuum every 10 sec slowed it to 25.1 sec, running every 3 sec
to 24.3 sec. Running vacuum in a tight loop slowed test down to 30.25
sec.

-------------------------
Hannu

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dann Corbit 2002-02-27 21:10:32 Re: Oracle vs PostgreSQL in real life
Previous Message Dann Corbit 2002-02-27 21:05:52 Re: min,max aggregate functions