On Sat, Jan 08, 2011 at 10:20:22PM -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote: > One thing that would help a lot besides code review is performance > testing. I did some months ago and I know Dan booked time on MIT > benchmarking systems and got good numbers, but with the refactoring > it would be good to redo that, and benchmarking properly can be very > time consuming. Existing benchmark software might need to be tweaked > to retry transactions which fail with SQLSTATE 40001, or at least > continue on with out counting those in TPS figures, since > applications using this feature will generally have frameworks which > automatically do retries for that SQLSTATE.
I can certainly try to get a more complete set of DBT-2 results -- and possibly even do that in a timely manner :-) -- but I doubt I'll have time in the near future to do anything more comprehensive. It would be great to have some more results beyond DBT-2/TPC-C. Although it's certainly an interesting benchmark, it's known not to exhibit any serialization anomalies under snapshot isolation. (And, of course, it's seek-bound, so results may not be representative of workloads that aren't.) Dan -- Dan R. K. Ports MIT CSAIL http://drkp.net/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers