Re: Low Budget Performance, Part 2

From: eric soroos <eric-psql(at)soroos(dot)net>
To: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Low Budget Performance, Part 2
Date: 2002-11-27 20:45:39
Message-ID: 26289626.1173721357@[4.42.179.151]
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Wed, 27 Nov 2002 14:19:22 -0500 in message <21018(dot)1038424762(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> eric soroos <eric-psql(at)soroos(dot)net> writes:
> > Running pgbench with: scaling factor=1, # transactions = 100, and
> > #clients =1,2,3,5,10,15
>
> The scaling factor has to at least equal the max # of clients you intend
> to test, else pgbench will spend most of its time fighting update
> contention (parallel transactions wanting to update the same row).
>

Ok, with the scaling factor set at 20, the new results are more in line with expectations:

For 1-10 clients, IDE gets 25-30 tps, SCSI 40-50 (more with more clients, roughly linear).

The CPU was hardly working in these runs (~50% on scsi, ~20% on ide), vs nearly 100% on the previous run.

I'm suspect that the previous runs were colored by having the entire dataset in memory as well as the update contention.

eric

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Richard Huxton 2002-11-28 09:31:39 Re: Low Budget Performance, Part 2
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-11-27 19:19:22 Re: Low Budget Performance, Part 2