X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 542C69FA278 for ; Tue, 16 May 2006 06:40:23 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.251]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 14273-10 for ; Tue, 16 May 2006 06:40:16 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: delayed 00:06:38.514117 by SQLgrey- Received: from gollum.cambrium.nl (mx1.cambrium.nl [217.19.16.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 989C99F944D for ; Tue, 16 May 2006 06:40:15 -0300 (ADT) Received: (qmail 22097 invoked from network); 16 May 2006 09:33:34 -0000 Received: from office.tweakers.net (HELO ?10.0.0.157?) (84.245.2.46) by gollum.cambrium.nl with SMTP; 16 May 2006 09:33:34 -0000 Message-ID: <44699C6C.80302@tweakers.net> Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 11:33:32 +0200 From: Arjen van der Meijden User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (Windows/20060308) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pgsql-performance Subject: Pgsql (and mysql) benchmark on T2000/Solaris and some profiling Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200605/340 X-Sequence-Number: 19127 Hi List, In the past few weeks we have been developing a read-heavy mysql-benchmark to have an alternative take at cpu/platform-performance. Not really to have a look at how fast mysql can be. This benchmark runs on mysql 4.1.x, 5.0.x and 5.1.x and is modelled after our website's production database and the load generated on it is modelled after a simplified version of our visitor behaviour. Long story short, we think the test is a nice example of the relatively lightweight, read-heavy webapplications out there and therefore decided to have a go at postgresql as well. Of course the queries and indexes have been adjusted to (by our knowledge) best suit postgresql, while maintaining the same output to the application/interface layer. While the initial structure only got postgresql at about half the performance of mysql 4.1.x, the current version of our postgresql-benchmark has quite similar results to mysql 4.1.x, but both are quite a bit slower than 5.0.x (I think its about 30-40% faster). Since the results from those benchmarks are not yet public (they will be put together in a story at our website), I won't go into too much details about this benchmark. Currently we're having a look at a Sun T2000 and will be looking at will be looking at other machines as well in the future. We are running the sun-release of postgresql 8.1.3 on that T2000 now, but are looking at compiling the cvs-head version (for its index-root-cache) somewhere this week. My guess is there are a few people on this list who are interested in some dtrace results taken during our benchmarks on that T2000. Although my knowledge of both Solaris and Dtrace are very limited, I already took some samples of the system and user calls. I used Jignesh Shah's scripts for that: http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/jkshah?entry=profiling_postgresql_using_dtrace_on You can find the samples here: http://achelois.tweakers.net/~acm/pgsql-t2000/syscall.log http://achelois.tweakers.net/~acm/pgsql-t2000/usrcall.log And I also did the memcpy-scripts, here: http://achelois.tweakers.net/~acm/pgsql-t2000/memcpysize.log http://achelois.tweakers.net/~acm/pgsql-t2000/memcpystack.log (this last log is 3.5MB) If anyone is interested in some more dtrace results, let me know (and tell me what commands to run ;-) ). Best regards, Arjen