Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 16:05:22 -0500
From: "Jim C. Nasby" <decibel@decibel.org>
To: PFC <lists@peufeu.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Postgres Benchmark Results
Message-ID: <20070521210522.GN62346@nasby.net>
References: <op.tsmrv71ecigqcu@apollo13>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <op.tsmrv71ecigqcu@apollo13>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)

On Sun, May 20, 2007 at 04:58:45PM +0200, PFC wrote:
> 
> 	I felt the world needed a new benchmark ;)
> 	So : Forum style benchmark with simulation of many users posting and 
> viewing forums and topics on a PHP website.
> 
> 	http://home.peufeu.com/ftsbench/forum1.png

Any chance of publishing your benchmark code so others can do testing?
It sounds like a useful, well-thought-out benchmark (even if it is
rather specialized).

Also, I think it's important for you to track how long it takes to
respond to requests, both average and maximum. In a web application no
one's going to care if you're doing 1000TPS if it means that every time
you click on something it takes 15 seconds to get the next page back.
With network round-trip times and what-not considered I'd say you don't
want it to take any more than 200-500ms between when a request hits a
webserver and when the last bit of data has gone back to the client.

I'm guessing that there's about 600MB of memory available for disk
caching? (Well, 600MB minus whatever shared_buffers is set to).
-- 
Jim Nasby                                      decibel@decibel.org
EnterpriseDB      http://enterprisedb.com      512.569.9461 (cell)