Hi Tom,
As requested - although the results are all over the place... :-( One interesting factor in these tests is that the max tps without the new code was 74.7, with the new code, 85.8.
This is a Sony Laptop, slow IDE disk, Fedora Core 2
[EMAIL PROTECTED] pgsql-HEAD]$ uname -a
Linux localhost.localdomain 2.6.6-1.435 #1 Mon Jun 14 09:09:07 EDT 2004 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux
./bin/postmaster -F
HTH.
Regards, Grant
-- PRE NESTED XACTS [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgbench]$ ./pgbench -c 5 -t 1000 bench starting vacuum...end. transaction type: TPC-B (sort of) scaling factor: 10 number of clients: 5 number of transactions per client: 1000 number of transactions actually processed: 5000/5000 tps = 74.632059 (including connections establishing) tps = 74.710309 (excluding connections establishing)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] pgbench]$ ./pgbench -c 5 -t 1000 bench starting vacuum...end. transaction type: TPC-B (sort of) scaling factor: 10 number of clients: 5 number of transactions per client: 1000 number of transactions actually processed: 5000/5000 tps = 61.405658 (including connections establishing) tps = 61.471754 (excluding connections establishing)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] pgbench]$ ./pgbench -c 5 -t 1000 bench starting vacuum...end. transaction type: TPC-B (sort of) scaling factor: 10 number of clients: 5 number of transactions per client: 1000 number of transactions actually processed: 5000/5000 tps = 59.702545 (including connections establishing) tps = 59.754499 (excluding connections establishing)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] pgbench]$ ./pgbench -c 5 -t 1000 bench starting vacuum...end. transaction type: TPC-B (sort of) scaling factor: 10 number of clients: 5 number of transactions per client: 1000 number of transactions actually processed: 5000/5000 tps = 54.531685 (including connections establishing) tps = 54.584432 (excluding connections establishing)
-- POST NESTED XACTS [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgbench]$ ./pgbench -c 5 -t 1000 bench starting vacuum...end. transaction type: TPC-B (sort of) scaling factor: 10 number of clients: 5 number of transactions per client: 1000 number of transactions actually processed: 5000/5000 tps = 72.656915 (including connections establishing) tps = 72.732723 (excluding connections establishing)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] pgbench]$ ./pgbench -c 5 -t 1000 bench starting vacuum...end. transaction type: TPC-B (sort of) scaling factor: 10 number of clients: 5 number of transactions per client: 1000 number of transactions actually processed: 5000/5000 tps = 85.687383 (including connections establishing) tps = 85.822281 (excluding connections establishing)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] pgbench]$ ./pgbench -c 5 -t 1000 bench starting vacuum...end. transaction type: TPC-B (sort of) scaling factor: 10 number of clients: 5 number of transactions per client: 1000 number of transactions actually processed: 5000/5000 tps = 59.479127 (including connections establishing) tps = 59.540478 (excluding connections establishing)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] pgbench]$ ./pgbench -c 5 -t 1000 bench starting vacuum...end. transaction type: TPC-B (sort of) scaling factor: 10 number of clients: 5 number of transactions per client: 1000 number of transactions actually processed: 5000/5000 tps = 51.675145 (including connections establishing) tps = 51.715526 (excluding connections establishing)
Tom Lane wrote: [snip]
Can anyone else reproduce these results? The test case I'm using is pgbench -i -s 10 bench followed by repeated pgbench -c 5 -t 1000 bench I've built PG with --enable-debug and --enable-cassert, and am running with -F (fsync off) but otherwise absolutely factory-stock postgresql.conf. The hardware is a not-so-new-anymore Dell P4 with run-of-the-mill IDE disk drive, running RHL 8.0. Obviously none of this is tuned at all, but the question is why did CVS tip get faster when it should by rights be slower.
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
