From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: Nicholson, Brad (Toronto, ON, CA) <bnicholson@hp.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: 9.2.3 upgrade reduced pgbench performance by 60%
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 15:52:10 -0700
Message-ID: <5153781A.2030704@agliodbs.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <EC55DC235432104F8255702A8D7344D941836A29@G4W3302.americas.hpqcorp.net>
References: <1CD2DD2A-C8C6-41CB-86CB-D44AE5E245CB@marketsworld.com>
<5150B4D0.3020902@agliodbs.com>
<EC55DC235432104F8255702A8D7344D941836A29@G4W3302.americas.hpqcorp.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-performance>
>
> I saw some similar results comparing 9.0 and 9.2 pgbench tests. My tests were on a VM, but on a dedicate host/hardware with no other VM's running on it to minimize variables. I didn't have a lot of time to dig into it, but I do recall seeing more lock contention on updates on the 9.2 instance though.
Ah, good point. At that scale, Colin's test is mostly a contention
test. There's something there worth investigating, but it's not a
realistic use case.
Colin, please try your pgbench tests with -s 100.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
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: josh@agliodbs.com, bnicholson@hp.com
Subject: Re: 9.2.3 upgrade reduced pgbench performance by 60%
In-Reply-To: <5153781A.2030704@agliodbs.com>
* 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