Re: Fork-based version of pgbench
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Fork-based version of pgbench |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 18325.1133483010@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответы |
Re: Fork-based version of pgbench
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Now that I've fixed the silly mistake in the fork-based version of pgbench, http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-12/msg00017.php I'm seeing it consistently outperform the CVS-tip version by about 5%. I get about 700 tps versus 670 tps; meanwhile "top" reports that idle CPU percentage drops from around 15% to around 5%. So I'm thinking it may be worthwhile to fix the portability issues (ie, provide a thread-based variant for Windows) and make it the standard version. It's not so much that I want to inflate the measurements, as that leaving 10% of the CPU on the table reduces pgbench's usefulness as a way of stress-testing the backend. The test case I'm looking at is on a dual Xeon, EM64T, hyperthreading enabled (hence, 4 logical CPUs), running Fedora Core 4. Database parameters are stock except these changes to minimize I/O:fsync = offshared_buffers = 50000checkpoint_segments = 30 Database is initialized with "pgbench -i -s 10 bench" and then tested with "pgbench -c 10 -t 3000 bench"; I usually do three runs and take the median to have a trustworthy number. It'd be interesting to find out if other people can get similar results on other platforms. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: