On Tue, 1 Apr 2008, Guillaume Smet wrote:
> I wonder if it's not worth it to have a very simple thing already
> reporting results as the development cycle for 8.4 has already started
> (perhaps several pgbench unit tests testing various type of queries with
> a daily tree)
The pgbench-tools utilities I was working on at one point anticipated this
sort of test starting one day. You can't really get useful results out of
pgbench without running it enough times that you get average or median
values. I dump everything into a results database which can be separated
from the databases used for running the test, and then it's easy to
compare day to day aggregate results across different query types.
I haven't had a reason to work on that recently, but if you've got a
semi-public box ready for benchmarks now I do. Won't be able to run any
serious benchmarks on the systems you described, but should be great for
detecting basic regressions and testing less popular compile-time options
as you describe.
As far as the other more powerful machines you mentioned go, would need to
know a bit more about the disks and disk controller in there to comment
about whether those are worth the trouble to integrate. The big missing
piece of community hardware that remains elusive would be a system with
>=4 cores, >=8GB RAM, and >=8 disks with a usable write-caching controller
in it.
--
* Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
