Received: from localhost (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C00A9F9312 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 12:04:32 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 88099-02 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 12:04:04 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from floppy.pyrenet.fr (news.pyrenet.fr [194.116.145.2]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 078DF9F9C35 for ; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 12:04:03 -0400 (AST) Received: by floppy.pyrenet.fr (Postfix, from userid 106) id 3EFEF30E31; Mon, 11 Dec 2006 17:04:03 +0100 (MET) From: Chris Browne X-Newsgroups: pgsql.performance Subject: Re: New to PostgreSQL, performance considerations Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:47:51 -0500 Organization: cbbrowne Computing Inc Lines: 69 Message-ID: <60psaq5t94.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com> References: <8a0c7af10612101141n2c7727c3r2f92345753960808@mail.gmail.com> <430d92a20612101336r3de8862coe618277fccb4006a@mail.gmail.com> <8a0c7af10612101702i49b5a533v4a2300d90d9dae6b@mail.gmail.com> <20061211021847.GE16692@mathom.us> <8a0c7af10612110305u305124b2v3d63491b5f57a86b@mail.gmail.com> <87u002mv49.fsf@wolfe.cbbrowne.com> <8a0c7af10612110531sbb019ck259fb16d131fdb50@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.hub.org User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) XEmacs/21.4.19 (linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:jzwx8zcXYRcVd+oa2NMDkPxH27Y= To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200612/238 X-Sequence-Number: 22294 daniel.colchete@gmail.com ("Daniel van Ham Colchete") writes: > You are right Christopher. > > Okay. Let's solve this matter. > > What PostgreSQL benchmark software should I use??? pgbench is one option. There's a TPC-W at pgFoundry (). There's the Open Source Database Benchmark. () Those are three reasonable options. > I'll test PostgreSQL 8.1 on a Fedora Core 6 and on a Gentoo. I'll get > the same version FC6 uses and install it at my Gentoo. I'll use the > same hardware (diferent partitions to each). Wrong approach. You'll be comparing apples to oranges, because Gentoo and Fedora pluck sources from different points in the source code stream. In order to prove what you want to prove, you need to run the benchmarks all on Gentoo, where you run with 4 categorizations: 1. Where you run PostgreSQL and GLIBC without any processor-specific optimizations 2. Where you run PostgreSQL and GLIBC with all relevant processor-specific optimizations 3. Where you run PostgreSQL with, and GLIBC without processor-specific optimizations 4. Where you run PostgreSQL without, and GLIBC with processor-specific optimizations That would allow one to clearly distinguish which optimizations are particularly relevant. > I'm not saying that Gentoo is faster than FC6. I just want to prove > that if you compile your software to make better use of your > processor, it will run faster. > > It might take a few days because I'm pretty busy right now at my > job. I expect that you'll discover, if you actually do these tests, that this belief is fairly much nonsense. - Modern CPUs do a huge amount of on-CPU self-tuning. - CPU features that could have a material effect tend to be unusable when compiling general purpose libraries and applications. GCC doesn't generate MMX-like instructions. - Database application performance tends to be I/O driven. - When database application performance *isn't* I/O driven, it is likely to be driven by cache management, which compiler options won't affect. -- output = reverse("ofni.secnanifxunil" "@" "enworbbc") http://linuxdatabases.info/info/sgml.html "very few people approach me in real life and insist on proving they are drooling idiots." -- Erik Naggum, comp.lang.lisp