Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E77CE2E3089 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 14:48:23 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 83724-01-2 for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 14:48:21 -0400 (AST) Received: from exprod6og102.obsmtp.com (exprod6og102.obsmtp.com [64.18.1.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CEC252E305A for ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 14:47:53 -0400 (AST) Received: from source ([63.240.6.3]) (using TLSv1) by exprod6ob102.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP; Mon, 04 Feb 2008 10:47:51 PST Received: from D01SMTP04.Mi8.com ([172.16.1.243]) by Outbound01.Mi8.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 4 Feb 2008 13:49:49 -0500 Received: from MI8NYCMAIL08.Mi8.com ([172.16.1.165]) by D01SMTP04.Mi8.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 4 Feb 2008 13:49:48 -0500 Received: from 63.80.24.130 ([63.80.24.130]) by MI8NYCMAIL08.Mi8.com ([172.16.1.190]) via Exchange Front-End Server mi8owa.mi8.com ([172.16.1.134]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Mon, 4 Feb 2008 18:49:47 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.0.0.071130 Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 10:47:49 -0800 Subject: Re: Benchmark Data requested From: Luke Lonergan To: Simon Riggs , Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [PERFORM] Benchmark Data requested Thread-Index: AchnXnBg0ElUdTP7k0O5rRFrjAaBkQ== In-Reply-To: <1202150236.4252.521.camel@ebony.site> Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Feb 2008 18:49:48.0908 (UTC) FILETIME=[B7D8BAC0:01C8675E] X-TM-AS-Product-Ver: SMEX-7.0.0.1345-5.0.1023-15710.000 X-TM-AS-Result: No--9.774000-8.000000-31 X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200802/8 X-Sequence-Number: 28550 Hi Simon, Note that MonetDB/X100 does not have a SQL optimizer, they ran raw hand-coded plans. As a consequence, these comparisons should be taken as an "executor-executor" test and we/you should be sure that the PG planner has generated the best possible plan. That said, we've already done the comparisons internally and they've got a good point to make about L2 cache use and removal of unnecessary abstractions in the executor. We've been aware of this since 2005/6 and have been slowly working these ideas into our/PG executor. Bottom line: it's a good thing to work to get close to the X100/Monet executor with a more general purpose DB. PG is a looong way from being comparable, mostly due to poor L2 D-cache locality and I-cache thrashing in the executor. The only way to cure this is to work on more rows than one at a time. - Luke On 2/4/08 10:37 AM, "Simon Riggs" wrote: > Can I ask for some help with benchmarking? > > There are some results here that show PostgreSQL is slower in some cases > than Monet and MySQL. Of course these results were published immediately > prior to 8.2 being released, plus run out-of-the-box, so without even > basic performance tuning. > > Would anybody like to repeat these tests with the latest production > versions of these databases (i.e. with PGSQL 8.3), and with some > sensible tuning settings for the hardware used? It will be useful to get > some blind tests with more sensible settings. > > http://monetdb.cwi.nl/projects/monetdb//SQL/Benchmark/TPCH/ > > Multiple runs from different people/different hardware is useful since > they help to iron-out differences in hardware and test methodology. So > don't worry if you see somebody else doing this also. > > Thanks,