Re: Benchmarck PostgreSQL 8.1.4 MySQL 5.0.20 and Oracle - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Jim C. Nasby
Subject Re: Benchmarck PostgreSQL 8.1.4 MySQL 5.0.20 and Oracle
Date
Msg-id 20060519202134.GM64371@pervasive.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Benchmarck PostgreSQL 8.1.4 MySQL 5.0.20 and Oracle  (Jean-Paul Argudo <jean-paul@argudo.org>)
List pgsql-performance
On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 12:48:42PM +0200, Jean-Paul Argudo wrote:
> > autovaccuum = on
>
> Thats a critic point. Personaly I dont use autovacuum. Because I just
> don't want a vacuum to be started ... when the server is loaded :)
>
> I prefer control vacuum process, when its possible (if its not,
> autovacuum is the best choice!), for example, a nighlty vacuum...

This can be problematic for a benchmark, which often will create dead
tuples at a pretty good clip.

In any case, if you are going to use autovacuum, you should cut all the
thresholds and scale factors in half, and set cost_delay to something (I
find 5-10 is usually good).

Depending on your write load, you might need to make the bgwriter more
aggressive, too.

If you can graph some metric from your benchmark over time it should be
pretty easy to spot if the bgwriter is keeping up with things or not; if
it's not, you'll see big spikes every time there's a checkpoint.

> A question for you: after setting up your test database, did you launch
> a vacuum full analyze of it ?

Why would you vacuum a newly loaded database that has no dead tuples?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant      jnasby@pervasive.com
Pervasive Software      http://pervasive.com    work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf       cell: 512-569-9461

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Jim C. Nasby"
Date:
Subject: Re: Benchmarck PostgreSQL 8.1.4 MySQL 5.0.20 and Oracle
Next
From: "Jim C. Nasby"
Date:
Subject: Re: Performance/Maintenance test result collection