On Dec 14, 2006, at 14:44 , Tom Lane wrote:
The pgbench app itself becomes the bottleneck at high transaction rates. Awhile back I rewrote it to improve its ability to issue commands concurrently, but then desisted from submitting the changes --- if we change the app like that, future numbers would be incomparable to past ones, which sort of defeats the purpose of a benchmark no?
At the same time, if the current pgbench isn't the tool we want to use, is this kind of backward comparison going to hinder any move to improve it? It sounds like there's quite a bit of room for improvement in pg_bench, and in my opinion we should move forward to make an improved tool, one that measures what we want to measure. And while comparison with past results might not be possible, there remains the possibility of rerunning the improved pgbench on previous systems, I should think.
Michael Glaesemann grzm seespotcode net ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
