I think both kind of tests (general and app specific) are complementary and useful in their own way. At a minimum, if the general ones fail, why go to the expenses of doing the specific ones ? Setting up a meaningful application test can take a lot of time and it can be hard to pinpoint exactly where in the stack the performance drops occur. The way I see it, synthetic benchmarks allow to isolate somewhat the layers and serve as a base to validate application tests done later on. It surprises me that asking for the general perf behavior of a platform is controversial.
Sébastien On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:51 AM, John R Pierce <pie...@hogranch.com> wrote: > On 08/23/12 6:49 AM, Craig Ringer wrote: > >> In this case, what he's doing is seeking generalized performance >> measurements. I don't think details were particularly necessary until it >> got pulled off-track. >> > > > "42" > > performance measurements without a very narrow definition of 'performance' > are useless. depending on the nature of the application workload, > postgres can stress completely different aspects of the system (cpu vs read > IO performance vs write IO performance being the big three). > > > > -- > john r pierce N 37, W 122 > santa cruz ca mid-left coast > > > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/**mailpref/pgsql-general<http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general> >
