Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B543063232E for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:25:13 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.29]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 50297-02 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:25:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de (moutng.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.171]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 511CD6322B0 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 15:25:06 -0300 (ADT) Received: from [192.168.1.151] (static-71-179-240-8.bltmmd.fios.verizon.net [71.179.240.8]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mreu2) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0LyPw2-1OyoeH3TRG-015Jbg; Thu, 19 Aug 2010 20:25:04 +0200 Message-ID: <4C6D76FE.9010407@2ndquadrant.com> Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2010 14:25:02 -0400 From: Greg Smith User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100317) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Philippe Rimbault CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Performance on new 64bit server compared to my 32bit desktop References: <4C6CE64D.6070104@edd.fr> In-Reply-To: <4C6CE64D.6070104@edd.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:zTuOIp/3PTH5plO0eNW+H1kYeE6qP7rJQwxSiZigBEg heE/ODfweNIjYYmWkYjadAvm45DkekXSTBqW/cVwtzmM6EQ2i5 6j1RPGpvHmnQ0/GXj2uys7J91ZyaPOZz6FTLR70+9tCQXP7Had TofJrHbVO9Jk8BealZQ9Q/TWo51yOMp9iWB56Mo0ThoVFfJc4n oFIxtdKbDxwADp6dYaRkGBmDMh1yz8k1ohM1KvsTU8= X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201008/235 X-Sequence-Number: 40078 Philippe Rimbault wrote: > I've run "time pgbench -c 50" : > server x64 : > starting vacuum...end. > transaction type: TPC-B (sort of) > scaling factor: 1 > query mode: simple > number of clients: 50 > number of transactions per client: 10 > number of transactions actually processed: 500/500 > tps = 523.034437 (including connections establishing) > tps = 663.511008 (excluding connections establishing) > As mentioned already, most of the difference you're seeing is simply that your desktop system has faster individual processor cores in it, so jobs where only a single core are being used are going to be faster on it. The above isn't going to work very well either because the database scale is too small, and you're not running the test for very long. The things the bigger server is better at, you're not testing. Since your smaller system has 2GB of RAM and the larger one 32GB, try this instead: pgbench -i -s 2000 pgbench -c 24 -T 60 -S pgbench -c 24 -T 300 That will create a much larger database, run some simple SELECT-only tests on it, and then run a write intensive one. Expect to see the server system crush the results of the desktop here. Note that this will take quite a while to run--the pgbench initialization step in particular is going to take a good fraction of an hour or more, and then the actual tests will run for 6 minutes after that. You can run more tests after that without doing the initialization step again, but if you run a lot of the write-heavy tests eventually performance will start to degrade. -- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support greg@2ndQuadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.us