Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4BF863254E for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 14:43:56 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 23463-01 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 14:43:53 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B0FF6324C2 for ; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 14:43:54 -0300 (ADT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n35HhoiQ016704; Sun, 5 Apr 2009 13:43:51 -0400 (EDT) To: David Kerr cc: Simon Riggs , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Question on pgbench output In-reply-to: <49D8E682.9020601@mr-paradox.net> References: <20090403195302.GA54342@mr-paradox.net> <24809.1238799146@sss.pgh.pa.us> <20090403233458.GC54342@mr-paradox.net> <1238914900.5444.292.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant> <4665.1238946412@sss.pgh.pa.us> <49D8E682.9020601@mr-paradox.net> Comments: In-reply-to David Kerr message dated "Sun, 05 Apr 2009 10:12:34 -0700" Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 13:43:50 -0400 Message-ID: <16703.1238953430@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.108 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL=0.108 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200904/106 X-Sequence-Number: 33473 David Kerr writes: > Fortunately the network throughput issue is not mine to solve. > Would it be fair to say that with the pgbench output i've given so far > that if all my users clicked "go" at the same time (i.e., worst case > scenario), i could expect (from the database) about 8 second response time? For the hardware you've got, and ignoring the network bandwidth issue, that appears to be a fair estimate of the worst case response. regards, tom lane