Message-ID: <4695EF96.3060009@kaltenbrunner.cc>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:08:38 +0200
From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan@kaltenbrunner.cc>
User-Agent: Icedove 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070607)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Jignesh K. Shah" <J.K.Shah@Sun.COM>
CC: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>,
	pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL publishes first real benchmark
References: <46925AD9.9020208@sun.com> <4694FE64.8070407@enterprisedb.com>
	<4695063D.9040108@sun.com> <27436.1184173639@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<469522A5.1070409@sun.com>
In-Reply-To: <469522A5.1070409@sun.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Jignesh K. Shah wrote:
> Can you list others that seemed out of place?

well to me the ones that look most questionable are:

work_mem=100MB - so this benchmark is really low concurrency(which does
not fit with max_connections=1000) and with trivial queries ?

enable_seqscan = off - why ?

effective_cache_size = 40GB - on a box with 16GB this seems wrong
especially since there are some indications out there that suggest that
while overestimating effective_cache_size was not a problem in versions
<8.2 it might not be so in 8.2 and up

wal_buffers = 2300 - there have been some numbers reported that going
over the default of 8 helps but it is generally considered that going
beyond 500 or maybe 1000 does not help at all ...


and one more is that you claim you used "-fast -O4 -xtarget=ultraT1"
which is something we explicitly advise against in our own
FAQ(http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs.FAQ_Solaris.html):

"Do not use any flags that modify behavior of floating point operations
and errno processing (e.g.,-fast).  These flags could raise some
nonstandard PostgreSQL behavior for example in the date/time computing."


Stefan