Received: from localhost (maia-4.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79F639F9392 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 18:14:02 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 12439-03 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 18:13:54 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from smtp3.clear.net.nz (smtp3.clear.net.nz [203.97.33.64]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 039BE9F931E for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 18:13:53 -0400 (AST) Received: from [192.168.1.11] (121-72-71-26.dsl.telstraclear.net [121.72.71.26]) by smtp3.clear.net.nz (CLEAR Net Mail) with ESMTP id <0JA4009TGR337G20@smtp3.clear.net.nz> for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:13:52 +1300 (NZDT) Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:13:30 +1300 From: Mark Kirkwood Subject: Re: New to PostgreSQL, performance considerations In-reply-to: <8a0c7af10612111210u224b2d22w540ca19785f5c9e4@mail.gmail.com> To: Daniel van Ham Colchete Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Message-id: <457DD80A.3010603@paradise.net.nz> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit References: <8a0c7af10612101141n2c7727c3r2f92345753960808@mail.gmail.com> <430d92a20612101336r3de8862coe618277fccb4006a@mail.gmail.com> <8a0c7af10612101702i49b5a533v4a2300d90d9dae6b@mail.gmail.com> <20061211021847.GE16692@mathom.us> <8a0c7af10612110305u305124b2v3d63491b5f57a86b@mail.gmail.com> <87u002mv49.fsf@wolfe.cbbrowne.com> <8a0c7af10612110531sbb019ck259fb16d131fdb50@mail.gmail.com> <20061211140638.GB25975@uio.no> <8a0c7af10612111210u224b2d22w540ca19785f5c9e4@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (X11/20061129) X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200612/267 X-Sequence-Number: 22323 Daniel van Ham Colchete wrote: > On 12/11/06, Steinar H. Gunderson wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 11:31:48AM -0200, Daniel van Ham Colchete wrote: >> > What PostgreSQL benchmark software should I use??? >> >> Look up the list archives; search for "TPC". >> >> > I'll test PostgreSQL 8.1 on a Fedora Core 6 and on a Gentoo. I'll get >> > the same version FC6 uses and install it at my Gentoo. I'll use the >> > same hardware (diferent partitions to each). >> >> Why do you want to compare FC6 and Gentoo? Wasn't your point that the >> -march= >> was supposed to be the relevant factor here? In that case, you want to >> keep >> all other things equal; so use the same distribution, only with -O2 >> -march=i686 vs. -march=athlon-xp (or whatever). >> >> /* Steinar */ > Using Gentoo is just a easy way to make cflag optimizations to all the > other libs as well: glibc, ... > > I can also mesure performance on Gentoo with cflag optimized > PostgreSQL and plain PostgreSQL as well. > I can certainly recall that when I switched from Fedora Core (2 or 3 can't recall now) to Gentoo that the machine was "faster" for many activities. Of course I can't recall precisely what now :-(. To actually track down *why* and *what* make it faster is another story, and custom CFLAGS is only 1 of the possible factors: others could be: - different kernel versions (Gentoo would have possibly been later) - different kernel patches (both RedHat and Gentoo patch 'em) - different versions of glibc (Gentoo possibly later again). - different config options for glibc (not sure if they in fact are, but it's possible...) - kernel and glibc built with different versions of gcc (again I suspect Gentoo may have used a later version) So there are a lot of variables to consider if you want to settle this debate once and for all :-)! Best wishes Mark