Re: PostgresSQL 13.0 Beta 1 on Phoronix

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PostgresSQL 13.0 Beta 1 on Phoronix
Date: 2020-05-25 06:57:35
Message-ID: 20200525065735.GG387341@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 02:50:08PM -0300, Ranier Vilela wrote:
> Em dom., 24 de mai. de 2020 às 14:34, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> escreveu:
>> It looks like they're only running pgbench for 60 second runs in all
>> configurations -- notice that "-T 60" is passed to pgbench. I'm not
>> entirely sure that that's all that there is to it. Still, there isn't
>> any real attempt to make it clear what's going on here. I have my
>> doubts about how representative these numbers are for that reason.
>
> I also find it very suspicious.

I don't know, but what seems pretty clear to me is this benchmark does
zero customization of postgresql.conf (it disables autovacuum!?), and
that the number of connections is calculated based on the number of
cores while the scaling factor is visibly calculated from the amount
of memory available in the environment. Perhaps the first part is
wanted, but we are very conservative to allow PG to work on small-ish
machines with the default configuration, and a 56-core machine with
378GB of memory is not something I would define as small-ish.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Noah Misch 2020-05-25 07:00:33 Re: Spurious "apparent wraparound" via SimpleLruTruncate() rounding
Previous Message Kyotaro Horiguchi 2020-05-25 06:50:06 Re: WAL reader APIs and WAL segment open/close callbacks