latest pgbench results - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject latest pgbench results
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZniPsH6qBaTviAPUE8yCCwET65wEMNwn4h2eQ5BnBSZA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: latest pgbench results  (Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>)
List pgsql-hackers
Here are the latest pgbench results from the IBM POWER7 machine.
These results were gathered about two weeks ago.  I ran each test
configuration three times; below I report the median of the three
results.  For all runs, I used scale factor = 300, clients = jobs, and
the following non-default configuration parameters: shared_buffers =
8GB, maintenance_work_mem = 4GB, synchronous_commit = off,
checkpoint_segments = 300, checkpoint_timeout = 15min,
checkpoint_completion_target = 0.9, log_line_prefix = '%t [%p] '.
Commits in use were cce5d681be7abfd9f48c28151ebf2b242f8ba438,
dd8ea2eb5e996f3f3dfd928e20aa2462c4bd9c63,
cce5d681be7abfd9f48c28151ebf2b242f8ba438.

Clients: 1
9.2 tps = 1355.953202 (including connections establishing)
9.3 tps = 1376.949633 (including connections establishing)
9.4 tps = 1283.168055 (including connections establishing)

Clients: 8
9.2 tps = 9165.548715 (including connections establishing)
9.3 tps = 9168.803482 (including connections establishing)
9.4 tps = 9130.962750 (including connections establishing)

Clients: 32
9.2 tps = 14456.061411 (including connections establishing)
9.3 tps = 14226.033279 (including connections establishing)
9.4 tps = 14932.841344 (including connections establishing)

The 9.2 and 9.3 numbers are very close, but things do seem to have
changed a bit in 9.4 - for worse at 1 client, and for better, perhaps,
at 32.

Make of these what you will; I'm not posting these as a way of
advocating anything in particular.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Disabling ALTER SYSTEM SET WAS: Re: ALTER SYSTEM SET command to change postgresql.conf parameters
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: DATE type output does not follow datestyle parameter