Re: New to PostgreSQL, performance considerations
- From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
- To: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
- Cc: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Alexander Staubo <alex(at)purefiction(dot)net>, Michael Stone <mstone+postgres(at)mathom(dot)us>
- Subject: Re: New to PostgreSQL, performance considerations
- Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2006 00:44:56 -0500
- Message-id: <15642(dot)1166075096(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
"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?
regards, tom lane
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index