Re: [HACKERS] Re: v7.1b4 bad performance

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: peter(dot)schmidt(at)prismedia(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: v7.1b4 bad performance
Date: 2001-02-17 06:59:59
Message-ID: 3210.982393199@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers

Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> I agree with Tom. I did some benchmarking tests using pgbench for a
> computer magazine in Japan. I got a almost equal or better result for
> 7.1 than 7.0.3 if commit_delay=0. See included png file.

Interesting curves. One thing you might like to know is that while
poking around with a profiler this afternoon, I found that the vast
majority of the work done for this benchmark is in the uniqueness
checks driven by the unique indexes. Declare those as plain (non
unique) and the TPS figures would probably go up noticeably. That
doesn't make the test invalid, but it does suggest that pgbench is
emphasizing one aspect of system performance to the exclusion of
others ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Lockhart 2001-02-17 07:20:48 Re: v7.1b4 bad performance
Previous Message Tatsuo Ishii 2001-02-17 06:46:35 Re: [HACKERS] Re: v7.1b4 bad performance

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Lockhart 2001-02-17 07:20:48 Re: v7.1b4 bad performance
Previous Message Tatsuo Ishii 2001-02-17 06:46:35 Re: [HACKERS] Re: v7.1b4 bad performance