From: Jim C. Nasby <jim@nasby.net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: yoav x <yoav112003@yahoo.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL and sql-bench
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2006 16:49:14 -0500
Message-ID: <20060921214913.GV28987@nasby.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <829.1158851565@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <20060921145244.13005.qmail@web35813.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
<829.1158851565@sss.pgh.pa.us>
On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 11:12:45AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> yoav x <yoav112003@yahoo.com> writes:
> > I've applied the following parameters to postgres.conf:
>
> > max_connections = 500
> > shared_buffers = 3000
> > work_mem = 100000
> > effective_cache_size = 3000000000
You just told the database that you have 23G of storage.
effective_cache_size is measured in blocks, which are normally 8K.
> Please see my earlier reply --- you ignored at least
> checkpoint_segments, which is critical, and perhaps other things.
>
> Don't forget also that testing mysql/myisam against fsync = on
> is inherently unfair.
Even with fsync = off, there's still a non-trivial amount of overhead
brought on by MVCC that's missing in myisam. If you don't care about
concurrency or ACIDity, but performance is critical (the case that the
MySQL benchmark favors), then PostgreSQL probably isn't for you.
--
Jim Nasby jim@nasby.net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: jim@nasby.net, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, yoav112003@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL and sql-bench
In-Reply-To: <20060921214913.GV28987@nasby.net>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox