From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Alexander Staubo <alex(at)purefiction(dot)net>, Michael Stone <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: New to PostgreSQL, performance considerations |
Date: | 2006-12-14 01:04:13 |
Message-ID: | 200612140104.kBE14Dx09695@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > While skimming over the pgbench source it has looked to me like it's
> > necessary to pass the -s switch (scale factor) to both the
> > initialization (-i) and the subsequent (non -i) runs.
>
> No, it's not supposed to be, and I've never found it needed in practice.
> The code seems able to pull the scale out of the database (I forget how
> it figures it out exactly).
pgbench is designed to be a general benchmark, meanining it exercises
all parts of the system. I am thinking just reexecuting a single SELECT
over and over again would be a better test of the CPU optimizations.
--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rajesh Kumar Mallah | 2006-12-14 02:21:00 | Re: New to PostgreSQL, performance considerations |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-12-13 23:44:47 | Re: Insertion to temp table deteriorating over time |