From: Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>
To: Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: ml@bortal.de <ml@bortal.de>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Postgres benchmarking with pgbench
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:17:24 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <alpine.GSO.2.01.0903170012530.5259@westnet.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87ljr50zqp.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com>
References: <49BE2E84.2040506@bortal.de>
<alpine.GSO.2.01.0903161052430.9846@westnet.com>
<87bps132t1.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com>
<alpine.GSO.2.01.0903161227130.13431@westnet.com>
<87ljr50zqp.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com>
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Gregory Stark wrote:
> I think pgbench is just not that great a model for real-world usage
pgbench's default workload isn't a good model for anything. It wasn't a
particularly real-world test when the TPC-B it's based on was created, and
that was way back in 1990. And pgbench isn't even a good implementation
of that spec (the rows are too narrow, comments about that in pgbench.c).
At this point, the only good thing you can say about pgbench is that it's
been a useful tool for comparing successive releases of PostgreSQL in a
relatively fair way. Basically, it measures what pgbench measures, and
that has only a loose relationship with what people want a database to do.
--
* Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
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: gsmith@gregsmith.com, stark@enterprisedb.com, ml@bortal.de
Subject: Re: Postgres benchmarking with pgbench
In-Reply-To: <alpine.GSO.2.01.0903170012530.5259@westnet.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