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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Lane
>
> Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> writes:
> > Is this unmodified pgbench or has it Hiroshi tweaked behaviour of
> > connecting each client to its own database, so that locking and such
> > does not shade the possible benefits (was it about 15% ?) of delay>1
>
> I didn't much like that approach to altering the test, since it also
> means that all the clients are working with separate tables and hence
> not able to share read I/O; that doesn't seem like it's the same
> benchmark at all.

I agree with you at this point. Generally speaking the benchmark
has little meaning if it has no conflicts in the test case. I only
borrowed pgbench's source code to implement my test cases.
Note that there's only one database in my last test case. My
modified "pgbench" isn't a pgbench any more and I didn't intend
to change pgbench's spec like that. Probably it was my mistake
that I had posted my test cases using the form of patch. My
intension was to clarify the difference of my test cases.
However heavy conflicts with scaling factor 1 doesn't seem
preferable at least as the default of pgbench.

Regards,
Hiroshi Inoue