This is a discussion on PostgreSQL scalability on Sun UltraSparc T1 within the Pgsql Performance forums, part of the PostgreSQL category; --> On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 08:43:49AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Jochem van Dieten wrote: > >Tweakers.net ...
| |||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| ||||
| On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 08:43:49AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Jochem van Dieten wrote: > >Tweakers.net has done a database performance test between a Sun T2000 (8 > >core T1) and a Sun X4200 (2 dual core Opteron 280). The database > >benchmark is developed inhouse and represents the average query pattern > >from their website. It is MySQL centric because Tweakers.net runs on > >MySQL, but Arjen van der Meijden has ported it to PostgreSQL and has > >done basic optimizations like adding indexes. > > > >Arjen wrote about some of the preliminary results previously in > >http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql...6/msg00358.php > >but the article has now been published http://tweakers.net/reviews/633/7 > >This is all the more impressive if you scroll down and look at the > >behaviour of MySQL (after tweaking by both MySQL AB and Sun). > > I would love to get my hands on that postgresql version and see how much > farther it could be optimized. I'd love to get an english translation that we could use for PR. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend |
| |||
| On 1-8-2006 19:26, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 08:43:49AM -0700, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > I'd love to get an english translation that we could use for PR. Actually, we have an english version of the Socket F follow-up. http://tweakers.net/reviews/638 which basically displays the same results for Postgres vs MySQL. If and when a translation of the other article arrives, I don't know. Other follow-up stories will follow as well, whether and how soon those will be translated, I also don't know. We are actually pretty interested in doing so, but its a lot of work to translate correctly Best regards, Arjen ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings |
| |||
| Hi, Arjen, Arjen van der Meijden wrote: > It was the 8core version with 16GB memory... but actually that's just > overkill, the active portions of the database easily fits in 8GB and a > test on another machine with just 2GB didn't even show that much > improvements when going to 7GB (6x1G, 2x 512M), it was mostly in the > range of 10% improvement or less. I'd be interested in the commit_siblings and commit_delay settings, tuning them could give a high increase on throughput for highly concurrent insert/update workloads, at the cost of latency (and thus worse results for low concurrency situations). Different fsync method settings can also make a difference (I presume that syncing was enabled). HTH, Markus -- Markus Schaber | Logical Tracking&Tracing International AG Dipl. Inf. | Software Development GIS Fight against software patents in EU! www.ffii.org www.nosoftwarepatents.org ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org |
| ||||
| Hi Markus, As said, our environment really was a read-mostly one. So we didn't do much inserts/updates and thus spent no time tuning those values and left them as default settings. Best regards, Arjen Markus Schaber wrote: > Hi, Arjen, > > Arjen van der Meijden wrote: > >> It was the 8core version with 16GB memory... but actually that's just >> overkill, the active portions of the database easily fits in 8GB and a >> test on another machine with just 2GB didn't even show that much >> improvements when going to 7GB (6x1G, 2x 512M), it was mostly in the >> range of 10% improvement or less. > > I'd be interested in the commit_siblings and commit_delay settings, > tuning them could give a high increase on throughput for highly > concurrent insert/update workloads, at the cost of latency (and thus > worse results for low concurrency situations). > > Different fsync method settings can also make a difference (I presume > that syncing was enabled). > > HTH, > Markus > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq |