From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>
Cc: David Kerr <dmk@mr-paradox.net>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Question on pgbench output
Date: Sun, 05 Apr 2009 11:46:52 -0400
Message-ID: <4665.1238946412@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1238914900.5444.292.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant>
References: <20090403195302.GA54342@mr-paradox.net>
<alpine.GSO.2.01.0904031721570.5502@westnet.com>
<24809.1238799146@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20090403233458.GC54342@mr-paradox.net>
<1238914900.5444.292.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant>
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> On Fri, 2009-04-03 at 16:34 -0700, David Kerr wrote:
>> 400 concurrent users doesn't mean that they're pulling 1.5 megs /
>> second every second.
> There's a world of difference between 400 connected and 400 concurrent
> users. You've been testing 400 concurrent users, yet without measuring
> data transfer. The think time will bring the number of users right down
> again, but you really need to include the much higher than normal data
> transfer into your measurements and pgbench won't help there.
Actually pgbench can simulate think time perfectly well: use its \sleep
command in your script. I think you can even set it up to randomize the
sleep time.
I agree that it seems David has been measuring a case far beyond what
his real problem is.
regards, tom lane
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: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, simon@2ndQuadrant.com, dmk@mr-paradox.net
Subject: Re: Question on pgbench output
In-Reply-To: <4665.1238946412@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* 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