Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> Hrm. I just saw that the PHP ADODB guy just published a bunch of database
> benchmarks. It's fairly evident to me that benchmarking PostgreSQL on
> Win32 isn't really fair:
>
> http://php.weblogs.com/oracle_mysql_performance
>
> *sigh*
Not fair, perhaps.
But i
The benchmark handbook:
http://www.benchmarkresources.com/handbook/contents.asp
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This is how to get the FIPS benchmark. It measures CONFORMANCE rather
than performance:
http://www.itl.nist.gov/div897/ctg/sql_form.htm
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
A financial database benchmark:
http://www.cs.nyu.edu/cs/faculty/shasha/fintime.html
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -Original Message-
> From: ow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 10:32 PM
> To: Shridhar
> Daithankar<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchm
There's "The Open Source Database Benchmark",
http://osdb.sourceforge.net/.
Anyone tried to use it?
__
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
http://shopping.yahoo.com
---(end of broadcast)
On Tuesday 11 Feb 2003 8:01 pm, Mario Weilguni wrote:
> >Hrm. I just saw that the PHP ADODB guy just published a bunch of database
> >benchmarks. It's fairly evident to me that benchmarking PostgreSQL on
> >Win32 isn't really fair:
> >
> >http://php.weblogs.com/oracle_mysql_performance
>
> And wh
On Behalf Of Merlin Moncure
> Sent: Tuesday, 11 February 2003 11:44 PM
> To: Greg Copeland
> Cc: PostgresSQL Hackers Mailing List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks
>
>
> I've tested all the win32 versions of postgres I can get my
"Matthew T. O'Connor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... So we ship postgresql.conf with 32M of
> shared memory and auto_shared_mem_reduction = true. With a comment that
> the administrator might want to turn this off for production.
This really doesn't address Justin's point about clueless benchm
"Jon Griffin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So it appears that linux at least is way above your 8 meg point, unless I
> am missing something.
Yeah, AFAIK all recent Linuxen are well above the range of parameters
that I was suggesting (and even if they weren't, Linux is particularly
easy to change
FYI, my stock linux 2.4.19 gentoo kernel has:
kernel.shmall = 2097152
kernel.shmmax = 33554432
sysctl -a
So it appears that linux at least is way above your 8 meg point, unless I
am missing something.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: Have you chec
Justin Clift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Personally I'd be a bunch happier if we set the buffers so high that we
> definitely have decent performance, and the people that want to run
> PostgreSQL are forced to make the choice of either:
> 1) Adjust their system settings to allow PostgreSQL to
A quick-'n'-dirty first step would be more comments in postgresql.conf. Most
of the lines are commented out which would imply "use the default" but the
default is not shown. (I realize this has the difficulty of defaults that
change depending upon how PostgreSQL was configured/compiled but perha
On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 11:20:14AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
...
> We could retarget to try to stay under SHMMAX=4M, which I think is
> the next boundary that's significant in terms of real-world platforms
> (isn't that the default SHMMAX on some BSDen?).
...
Assuming 1 page = 4k, and number of pages
"Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> May I make a suggestion that maybe it is time to start thinking about
> tuning the default config file, IMHO its just a little bit too
> conservative,
It's a lot too conservative. I've been thinking for awhile that we
should adjust the defaults.
The
I've tested all the win32 versions of postgres I can get my hands on
(cygwin and not), and my general feeling is that they have problems with
insert performance with fsync() turned on, probably the fault of the os.
Select performance is not so much affected.
This is easily solved with transactions
On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 08:31, Mario Weilguni wrote:
> >Hrm. I just saw that the PHP ADODB guy just published a bunch of database
> >benchmarks. It's fairly evident to me that benchmarking PostgreSQL on
> >Win32 isn't really fair:
>
> >http://php.weblogs.com/oracle_mysql_performance
>
> And why i
On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 08:26, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
> Hrm. I just saw that the PHP ADODB guy just published a bunch of database
> benchmarks. It's fairly evident to me that benchmarking PostgreSQL on
> Win32 isn't really fair:
>
> http://php.weblogs.com/oracle_mysql_performance
>
> *sig
>Hrm. I just saw that the PHP ADODB guy just published a bunch of database
>benchmarks. It's fairly evident to me that benchmarking PostgreSQL on
>Win32 isn't really fair:
>http://php.weblogs.com/oracle_mysql_performance
And why is the highly advocated transaction capable MySQL 4 not tested?
Th
Hrm. I just saw that the PHP ADODB guy just published a bunch of database
benchmarks. It's fairly evident to me that benchmarking PostgreSQL on
Win32 isn't really fair:
http://php.weblogs.com/oracle_mysql_performance
*sigh*
Chris
---(end of broadcast)
20 matches
Mail list logo
