Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: New to PostgreSQL, performance considerations

From: Ron <rjpeace(at)earthlink(dot)net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: New to PostgreSQL, performance considerations
Date: 2006-12-14 06:45:29
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
Benchmarks, like any other SW, need modernizing and updating from time to time.

Given the multi-core CPU approach to higher performance as the 
current fad in CPU architecture, we need a benchmark that is appropriate.

If SPEC feels it is appropriate to rev their benchmark suite 
regularly, we probably should as well.

Ron Peacetree

At 12:44 AM 12/14/2006, Tom Lane wrote:
>"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> > On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 18:36 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >> Mostly, though, pgbench just gives the I/O system a workout.  It's not a
> >> really good general workload.
> > It also will not utilize all cpus on a many cpu machine. We recently
> > found that the only way to *really* test with pgbench was to actually
> > run 4+ copies of pgbench at the same time.
>The pgbench app itself becomes the bottleneck at high transaction
>rates.  Awhile back I rewrote it to improve its ability to issue
>commands concurrently, but then desisted from submitting the
>changes --- if we change the app like that, future numbers would
>be incomparable to past ones, which sort of defeats the purpose of a
>benchmark no?

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Gregory S. WilliamsonDate: 2006-12-14 06:49:05
Subject: Re: New to PostgreSQL, performance considerations
Previous:From: Jim NasbyDate: 2006-12-14 06:39:00
Subject: Re: File Systems Compared

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group