Hello,
> 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,
This means a database size of about 4.5 GB
> clients = jobs,
I understand that it means one thread per client.
> 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.
How long did it run?
As there has been some changes in pgbench, would it make sense to run the
same pgbench version (whatever) against the different servers?
To help appreciate wether the change is significant, it would help to
have all three runs so as to have an idea of the performance spread.
Maybe you can try my patch for better pgbench measures:
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/alpine.DEB.2.02.1308061042030.29999@localhost6.localdomain6
My experience is that performance can varry significantly during a run.
> 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.
--
Fabien.
