Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EA6F2E01BF for ; Sat, 26 Apr 2008 03:29:33 -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 47999-01-8 for ; Sat, 26 Apr 2008 03:29:21 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from oxford.xeocode.com (76-10-160-166.dsl.teksavvy.com [76.10.160.166]) by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFCF12E0222 for ; Sat, 26 Apr 2008 03:22:32 -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 1Jpdmo-0007Zp-BO; Sat, 26 Apr 2008 02:21:26 -0400 To: "Euler Taveira de Oliveira" Cc: "Greg Smith" , Subject: Re: Sun Talks about MySQL In-Reply-To: <481278E7.9030504@timbira.com> (Euler Taveira de Oliveira's message of "Fri\, 25 Apr 2008 21\:35\:51 -0300") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) X-Draft-From: ("nnimap+mail01.enterprisedb.com:INBOX.advocacy" 2326) 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> From: Gregory Stark Organization: EnterpriseDB Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 02:21:21 -0400 Message-ID: <87wsmlm90e.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: 200804/142 X-Sequence-Number: 13868 "Euler Taveira de Oliveira" writes: >> I recall Heikki was doing lots of tests with DBT2 for EnterpriseDB >> comparing those two releases like that; anybody know of a good summary I >> could utilize there? I thought that was one of the benchmarks that got a >> 20-30% speedup on going to 8.3 because it really took advantage of HOT in >> particular. If you're doing large TPC-C runs then the phantom-command-id and packed varlena changes give you about 9% space savings which translates surprisingly nicely into about 9% TPM increase. (This is for a specific schema, if you dumbify your schema with char(1)s and numerics you could see a bigger difference) HOT has a *huge* effect on how long your can run the benchmark before performance starts to droop. However the minimum run time for TPCC is only 2 hours and for large runs that's not enough for vacuum-related issues to kick in. Also, smoothed checkpoints have a *huge* effect but TPC-C is based on 95th percentile response times and the checkpoints only affect about 1% of the transaction response times. I think TPC-E will make both of these major improvements much more important. I suspect it would be hard to get 8.2 to even pass TPC-E due to the checkpoint dropouts. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's On-Demand Production Tuning