Re: Question on pgbench output

From: Simon Riggs
Subject: Re: Question on pgbench output
Date: ,
Msg-id: 1238914900.5444.292.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Re: Question on pgbench output  (David Kerr)
Responses: Re: Question on pgbench output  (Tom Lane)
List: pgsql-performance

Tree view

Question on pgbench output  (David Kerr, )
 Re: Question on pgbench output  (Tom Lane, )
  Re: Question on pgbench output  (David Kerr, )
   Re: Question on pgbench output  (Tom Lane, )
 Re: Question on pgbench output  (Scott Marlowe, )
 Re: Question on pgbench output  (Greg Smith, )
  Re: Question on pgbench output  (Tom Lane, )
   Re: Question on pgbench output  (David Kerr, )
    Re: Question on pgbench output  (David Kerr, )
    Re: Question on pgbench output  (Simon Riggs, )
     Re: Question on pgbench output  (Tom Lane, )
      Re: Question on pgbench output  (David Kerr, )
       Re: Question on pgbench output  (Tom Lane, )
   Re: Question on pgbench output  (Greg Smith, )
    Re: Question on pgbench output  (David Kerr, )

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 individual user's pull.

There's a world of difference between 400 connected and 400 concurrent
users. You've been testing 400 concurrent users, yet without measuring
data transfer. The think time will bring the number of users right down
again, but you really need to include the much higher than normal data
transfer into your measurements and pgbench won't help there.

--
 Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com
 PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support



pgsql-performance by date:

From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Question on pgbench output
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Question on pgbench output