David Kerr writes:
> Fortunately the network throughput issue is not mine to solve.
> Would it be fair to say that with the pgbench output i've given so far
> that if all my users clicked "go" at the same time (i.e., worst case
> scenario), i could expect (from the database) about 8 second respo
Tom Lane wrote:
Simon Riggs writes:
On Fri, 2009-04-03 at 16:34 -0700, David Kerr wrote:
400 concurrent users doesn't mean that they're pulling 1.5 megs /
second every second.
There's a world of difference between 400 connected and 400 concurrent
users. You've been testing 400 concurrent us
Simon Riggs writes:
> On Fri, 2009-04-03 at 16:34 -0700, David Kerr wrote:
>> 400 concurrent users doesn't mean that they're pulling 1.5 megs /
>> second every second.
> There's a world of difference between 400 connected and 400 concurrent
> users. You've been testing 400 concurrent users, yet w
On Fri, 2009-04-03 at 16:34 -0700, David Kerr wrote:
> 400 concurrent users doesn't mean that they're pulling 1.5 megs /
> second every second. Just that they could potentially pull 1.5 megs at
> any one second. most likely there is a 6 (minimum) to 45 second
> (average) gap between each individu
On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 10:35:58PM -0400, Greg Smith wrote:
- On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, Tom Lane wrote:
-
- and a bunch of postmaster ones, with "-c" (or by hitting "c" while top is
- running) you can even see what they're all doing. If the pgbench process
- is consuming close to 100% of a CPU's time
On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, Tom Lane wrote:
However, I don't think anyone else has been pgbench'ing transactions
where client-side libpq has to absorb (and then discard) a megabyte of
data per xact. I wouldn't be surprised that that eats enough CPU to
make it an issue. David, did you pay any attention
Gah - sorry, setting up pgbouncer for my Plan B.
I meant -pgbench-
Dave Kerr
On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 04:34:58PM -0700, David Kerr wrote:
- On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 06:52:26PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
- - Greg Smith writes:
- - > pgbench is extremely bad at simulating large numbers of clients. Th
On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 06:52:26PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
- Greg Smith writes:
- > pgbench is extremely bad at simulating large numbers of clients. The
- > pgbench client operates as a single thread that handles both parsing the
- > input files, sending things to clients, and processing their r
Greg Smith writes:
> pgbench is extremely bad at simulating large numbers of clients. The
> pgbench client operates as a single thread that handles both parsing the
> input files, sending things to clients, and processing their responses.
> It's very easy to end up in a situation where that bo
David Kerr writes:
> On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 04:43:29PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> - How much more "real" is the target hardware than what you have?
> - You appear to need about a factor of 10 better disk throughput than
> - you have, and that's not going to be too cheap.
> The hardware i'm using i
On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, David Kerr wrote:
Here is my transaction file:
\setrandom iid 1 5
BEGIN;
SELECT content FROM test WHERE item_id = :iid;
END;
Wrapping a SELECT in a BEGIN/END block is unnecessary, and it will
significantly slow down things for two reason: the transactions overhead
an
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 1:53 PM, David Kerr wrote:
> Here is my transaction file:
> \setrandom iid 1 5
> BEGIN;
> SELECT content FROM test WHERE item_id = :iid;
> END;
>
> and then i executed:
> pgbench -c 400 -t 50 -f trans.sql -l
>
> The results actually have surprised me, the database isn't
On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 04:43:29PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
- > I'm not really sure how to evaulate the tps, I've read in this forum that
- > some folks are getting 2k tps so this wouldn't appear to be good to me.
-
- Well, you're running a custom transaction definition so comparing your
- number to
David Kerr writes:
> The results actually have surprised me, the database isn't really tuned
> and i'm not working on great hardware. But still I'm getting:
> caling factor: 1
> number of clients: 400
> number of transactions per client: 50
> number of transactions actually processed: 2/2
Hello!
Sorry for the wall of text here.
I'm working on a performance POC and I'm using pgbench and could
use some advice. Mostly I want to ensure that my test is valid
and that I'm using pgbench properly.
The story behind the POC is that my developers want to pull web items
from the database (no
15 matches
Mail list logo
