On 06/13/2011 07:55 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
all those tests are done with pgbench running on the same box - which has a noticable impact on the results because pgbench is using ~1 core per 8 cores of the backend tested in cpu resoures - though I don't think it causes any changes in the results that would show the performance behaviour in a different light.
Yeah, this used to make a much bigger difference, but nowadays it's not so important. So long as you have enough cores that you can spare a chunk of them to drive the test with, and you crank "-j" up to a lot, there doesn't seem to be much of an advantage to moving the clients to a remote system now. You end up trading off CPU time for everything going through the network stack, which adds yet another set of uncertainty to the whole thing anyway.
I'm glad to see so many people have jumped onto doing these SELECT-only tests now. The performance farm idea I've been working on runs a test just like what's proven useful here. I'd suggested that because it's been really sensitive to changes in locking and buffer management for me.
-- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US g...@2ndquadrant.com Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.us -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
