Re: PostgreSQL publishes first real benchmark - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Stefan Kaltenbrunner
Subject Re: PostgreSQL publishes first real benchmark
Date
Msg-id 4695EF96.3060009@kaltenbrunner.cc
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PostgreSQL publishes first real benchmark  ("Jignesh K. Shah" <J.K.Shah@Sun.COM>)
Responses Re: PostgreSQL publishes first real benchmark  (Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-performance
Jignesh K. Shah wrote:
> Can you list others that seemed out of place?

well to me the ones that look most questionable are:

work_mem=100MB - so this benchmark is really low concurrency(which does
not fit with max_connections=1000) and with trivial queries ?

enable_seqscan = off - why ?

effective_cache_size = 40GB - on a box with 16GB this seems wrong
especially since there are some indications out there that suggest that
while overestimating effective_cache_size was not a problem in versions
<8.2 it might not be so in 8.2 and up

wal_buffers = 2300 - there have been some numbers reported that going
over the default of 8 helps but it is generally considered that going
beyond 500 or maybe 1000 does not help at all ...


and one more is that you claim you used "-fast -O4 -xtarget=ultraT1"
which is something we explicitly advise against in our own
FAQ(http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs.FAQ_Solaris.html):

"Do not use any flags that modify behavior of floating point operations
and errno processing (e.g.,-fast).  These flags could raise some
nonstandard PostgreSQL behavior for example in the date/time computing."



Stefan

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Marc Cousin
Date:
Subject: Re: Weird row estimate
Next
From: Gregory Stark
Date:
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL publishes first real benchmark