> Okay, plan B then: let's ask people to redo their benchmarks with > -s bigger than one. Now, how much bigger? > > To the extent that you think this is a model of a real bank, it should > be obvious that the number of concurrent transactions cannot exceed the > number of tellers; there should never be any write contention on a > teller's table row, because only that teller (client) should be issuing > transactions against it. Contention on a branch's row is realistic, > but not from more clients than there are tellers in the branch. > > As a rule of thumb, then, we could say that the benchmark's results are > not to be believed for numbers of clients exceeding perhaps 5 times the > scale factor, ie, half the number of teller rows (so that it's not too > likely we will have contention on a teller row). At least -s 5 seems reasonable for me too. Maybe we should make it as the default setting for pgbench? -- Tatsuo Ishii
- Re: [HACKERS] RE: Re: [ADMIN] ... Hannu Krosing
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: [ADMIN] v7.1... Hiroshi Inoue
- Re: [HACKERS] [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance Dmitry Morozovsky
- Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance Bruce Momjian
- Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance Dmitry Morozovsky
- Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance Dmitry Morozovsky
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad pe... Dave Mertens
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad pe... Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 b... Tatsuo Ishii
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: [ADMIN] v7.1... Tom Lane
- RE: [HACKERS] Re: [ADMIN] v7.1... Tatsuo Ishii
- RE: [HACKERS] Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 b... Hiroshi Inoue
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance Tatsuo Ishii
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance Tom Lane
- [HACKERS] Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance Thomas Lockhart
- [HACKERS] Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance Tatsuo Ishii
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance Larry Rosenman
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance Dmitry Morozovsky