Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEB8B6349E1 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 02:33:46 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 81539-09 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 02:33:43 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from qw-out-2122.google.com (qw-out-2122.google.com [74.125.92.24]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1715C63422C for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 02:33:13 -0300 (ADT) Received: by qw-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id 8so763621qwh.61 for ; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:33:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=t9fi+k9T1BsOQboWyWVCRA2BV4FqvaYOmBc7KTUBt64=; b=nwYPS6ZvJMn+/GYD5FC0dn7v/+wEoiF+9yT9LrRohGnTPOGKt7ma/y6/ibOH0ysQQo luRTgoBIF8snUaPl4ukTlIH6MmL7z9vintziva8TQLWKZFhrTD6+vgd8wQroAFtQ1som Gv8DEv5IqvcC/o2irdj5XHWwM5aWP7NT39p14= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=WYVcHbGX7HG0zeS0rBNHUPuPHxngEMOjpLBpJZdxVc69IIdYleR/R7mfAphF1+HB8I TF5vWilobWHXW/O5aAE0ifpkXdRmQhlAfomo/bNk+eR1MPOnZy8k80qjR4Y2lWqOwHnD 2wSI6vDHz4UAzpchmSvkL5KqJlc9OcolGTUp0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.224.54.83 with SMTP id p19mr6910116qag.97.1237267992478; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:33:12 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <49BE2E84.2040506@bortal.de> <87bps132t1.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com> <87ljr50zqp.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:33:12 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Postgres benchmarking with pgbench From: Scott Marlowe To: Greg Smith Cc: Gregory Stark , "ml@bortal.de" , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200903/228 X-Sequence-Number: 33150 On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Greg Smith wrote: > 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. =A0It wasn't = a > particularly real-world test when the TPC-B it's based on was created, an= d > that was way back in 1990. =A0And pgbench isn't even a good implementatio= n 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. =A0Basically, it measures what pgbench measures, and= that > has only a loose relationship with what people want a database to do. I'd say pgbench is best in negative. I.e it can't tell you a database server is gonna be fast, but it can usually tell you when something's horrifically wrong. If I just installed a new external storage array of some kind and I'm getting 6 tps, something is wrong somewhere. And it's good for exercising your disk farm for a week during burn in. It certainly turned up a bad RAID card last fall during acceptance testing our new servers. Took 36 hours of pgbench to trip the bug and cause the card to lock up. Had one bad disk drive too that pgbench killed of for me.