I think both kind of tests (general and app specific) are complementary and useful in their own way. At a minimum, if the general ones fail, why go to the expenses of doing the specific ones ? Setting up a meaningful application test can take a lot of time and it can be hard to pinpoint exactly where in the stack the performance drops occur. The way I see it, synthetic benchmarks allow to isolate somewhat the layers and serve as a base to validate application tests done later on. It surprises me that asking for the general perf behavior of a platform is controversial.
Sébastien
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:51 AM, John R Pierce
<pierce@hogranch.com> wrote:
On 08/23/12 6:49 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
In this case, what he's doing is seeking generalized performance measurements. I don't think details were particularly necessary until it got pulled off-track.
performance measurements without a very narrow definition of 'performance' are useless. depending on the nature of the application workload, postgres can stress completely different aspects of the system (cpu vs read IO performance vs write IO performance being the big three).
--
john r pierce N 37, W 122
santa cruz ca mid-left coast
