On 07/24/2011 05:55 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stefan Kaltenbrunner writes:
>> interesting - iirc we actually had some reports about current libpq
>> behaviour causing scaling issues on some OSes - see
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-06/msg00748.php and
>> some related threads. Iir
Stefan Kaltenbrunner writes:
> interesting - iirc we actually had some reports about current libpq
> behaviour causing scaling issues on some OSes - see
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2009-06/msg00748.php and
> some related threads. Iirc the final patch for that was never applied
>
Jeff Janes writes:
> How was this profile generated? I get a similar profile using
> --enable-profiling and gprof, but I find it not believable. The
> complete absence of any calls to libpq is not credible. I don't know
> about your profiler, but with gprof they should be listed in the call
> g
On 07/24/2011 03:50 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
> wrote:
>> On 06/13/2011 01:55 PM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> all those tests are done with pgbench running on the same box - which
>>> has a noticable impact on the results becau
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
wrote:
> On 06/13/2011 01:55 PM, 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 ba
On 06/14/2011 02:27 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
> wrote:
> ...
>>
>>
>> so it seems that sysbench is actually significantly less overhead than
>> pgbench and the lower throughput at the higher conncurency seems to be
>> cause by sysbench being able
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 9:09 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> I noticed that pgbench's doCustom (the function highest in the profile
> posted) returns doing nothing if the connection is supposed to be
> "sleeping"; seems an open door for busy waiting. I didn't check the
> rest of the code to see if t
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 13:09, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> I noticed that pgbench's doCustom (the function highest in the profile
> posted) returns doing nothing if the connection is supposed to be
> "sleeping"; seems an open door for busy waiting.
pgbench uses select() with/without timeout in the ca
Excerpts from Jeff Janes's message of lun jun 13 20:27:15 -0400 2011:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
> wrote:
> ...
> >
> >
> > so it seems that sysbench is actually significantly less overhead than
> > pgbench and the lower throughput at the higher conncurency seems to be
On 06/13/2011 08:27 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
pgbench sends each query (per connection) and waits for the reply
before sending another.
Do we know whether sysbench does that, or if it just stuffs the
kernel's IPC buffer full of queries without synchronously waiting for
individual replies?
sysb
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 09:27, Jeff Janes wrote:
> pgbench sends each query (per connection) and waits for the reply
> before sending another.
We can use -j option to run pgbench in multiple threads to avoid
request starvation. What setting did you use, Stefan?
>> for those curious - the profile
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 7:03 AM, Stefan Kaltenbrunner
wrote:
...
>
>
> so it seems that sysbench is actually significantly less overhead than
> pgbench and the lower throughput at the higher conncurency seems to be
> cause by sysbench being able to stress the backend even more than
> pgbench can.
On 06/13/2011 01:55 PM, 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 cha
13 matches
Mail list logo
