Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy

From Josh Berkus
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration
Date
Msg-id 200302132000.35639.josh@agliodbs.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration  (Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii@sra.co.jp>)
List pgsql-advocacy
Tatsuo,

> Sigh. People always complain "pgbench does not reliably producing
> repeatable numbers" or something then say "that's because pgbench's
> transaction has too much contention on the branches table". So I added
> -N option to pgbench which makes pgbench not to do any UPDATE to
> the branches table. But still people continue to complian...

Hey, pg_bench is a good start on a Postgres performance tester, and it's much,
much better than what there was before you came along ... which was nothing.
Thank you again for contributing it.

pg_bench is, however, only  a start on a performance tester, and we'd need to
build it up before we could use it as the basis of a PG tuner.

--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

pgsql-advocacy by date:

Previous
From: Kevin Brown
Date:
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] [HACKERS] More benchmarking of wal_buffers