Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 560612E0038 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:40:54 -0300 (ADT) Received: from developer.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 31960-08 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:40:47 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from oxford.xeocode.com (87-127-95-198.no-dns-yet.enta.net [87.127.95.198]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 918ED2E002D for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:40:49 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=oxford.xeocode.com) by oxford.xeocode.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JqYH3-00021V-8e; Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:40:25 -0400 To: "Josh Berkus" Cc: "Euler Taveira de Oliveira" , "Greg Smith" , "postgres performance list" Subject: Re: Benchmarks WAS: Sun Talks about MySQL In-Reply-To: <4815F648.9050901@agliodbs.com> (Josh Berkus's message of "Mon\, 28 Apr 2008 09\:07\:36 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) X-Draft-From: ("nnimap+mail01.enterprisedb.com:INBOX" 80246) References: <480F8C2D.6010806@emproshunts.com> <4811D1DD.9030401@otg-nc.com> <20080425130105.GA19447@crankycanuck.ca> <36e682920804250741p33d621f3gf35e6bdebe2e0531@mail.gmail.com> <20080425152053.GE19447@crankycanuck.ca> <481278E7.9030504@timbira.com> <87wsmlm90e.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com> <4814BDB8.2030108@agliodbs.com> <877iei9w4r.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com> <4815F648.9050901@agliodbs.com> From: Gregory Stark Organization: EnterpriseDB Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:40:25 -0400 Message-ID: <873ap5akme.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200804/411 X-Sequence-Number: 29904 "Josh Berkus" writes: > Greg, > >> What I was referring to by "passing" TPC-E was the criteria for a conformant >> benchmark run. TPC-C has iirc, only two relevant criteria: "95th percentile >> response time < 5s" and "average response time < 95th percentile response >> time". You can pass those even if 1 transaction in 20 takes 10-20s which is >> more than enough to cover checkpoints and other random sources of inconsistent >> performance. > > We can do this now. I'm unhappy because we're at about 1/4 of Oracle > performance, but we certainly pass -- even with 8.2. We certainly can pass TPC-C. I'm curious what you mean by 1/4 though? On similar hardware? Or the maximum we can scale to is 1/4 as large as Oracle? Can you point me to the actual benchmark runs you're referring to? But I just made an off-hand comment that I doubt 8.2 could pass TPC-E which has much more stringent requirements. It has requirements like: the throughput computed over any period of one hour, sliding over the Steady State by increments of ten minutes, varies from the Reported Throughput by no more than 2% -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's Slony Replication support!