Message-ID: <509BBF47.7090905@boreham.org>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 07:18:47 -0700
From: David Boreham <david_list@boreham.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
	rv:16.0) Gecko/20121026 Thunderbird/16.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: HT on or off for E5-26xx ?
References: <5099D5FA.90802@boreham.org> <5099E094.9010703@catalyst.net.nz>
	<509A631F.2010507@boreham.org> <509AD0AB.5010109@catalyst.net.nz>
	<509B241C.1080108@boreham.org> <509BBA87.3090400@optionshouse.com>
In-Reply-To: <509BBA87.3090400@optionshouse.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 11/8/2012 6:58 AM, Shaun Thomas wrote:
> On 11/07/2012 09:16 PM, David Boreham wrote:
>
>> bash-4.1$ /usr/pgsql-9.2/bin/pgbench -T 600 -j 48 -c 48
>
> Unfortunately without -S, you're not really testing the processors. A 
> regular pgbench can fluctuate a more than that due to writing and 
> checkpoints.
Hmm...my goal was to test with a workload close to our application's 
(which is heavy OLTP, small transactions and hence sensitive to I/O 
commit rate).
The hypothesis I was testing was that enabling HT positively degrades 
performance (which in my case it does not). I wasn't to be honest really 
testing the additional benefit from HT, rather observing that it is 
non-negative :)

If I have time I can run the select-only test for you and post the 
results. The DB fits into memory so it will be a good CPU test.