Re: usleep feature for pgbench
От | Jan Wieck |
---|---|
Тема | Re: usleep feature for pgbench |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 468DAFD5.30002@Yahoo.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: usleep feature for pgbench (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: usleep feature for pgbench
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 7/5/2007 5:30 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com> writes: >> I think I've coded it in a way that if one doesn't use the \usleep >> command at all, it will never even call gettimeofday() and use a NULL >> timeout in select() as it used to. > > Did you check that the observed performance for non-usleep-using scripts > didn't change? If this extra overhead causes a reduction in reported > TPS rates it would make it hard to compare older and newer tests. Given pgbench's unpredictability of results ... lets see. I ran dropdb x createdb x pgbench -i -s10 x psql -c 'checkpoint' x sleep 1 psql -c 'checkpoint' x pgbench-s10 -c5 -t10000 x pgbench -s10 -c5 -t10000 x pgbench -s10 -c5 -t10000 x Original pgbench reported 39, 37 and 33 TPS. Having my patch applied it reported 40, 38 and 33 TPS. Inserting a "\usleep 1" after the update to accounts of a default equivalent script changed those numbers to 40, 37 and 33. I interpret that as "does not change observed performance". > > Other than that I've got no objection to it. Will be committed after adjusting the README. Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: