Ivan Voras wrote:
I wish that, when people got the idea to run a simplistic benchmark
like this, they would at least have the common sense to put the
database on a RAM drive to avoid problems with different cylinder
speeds of rotational media and fragmentation from multiple runs.
Huh?
It's tough to benchmark anything involving rotational drives :)
But - how the database organises its IO to maximise the available
bandwidth, limit
avaiodable seeks, and limit avoidable flushes is absolutely key to
realistic performance,
especially on modest everyday hardware. Not everyone has a usage that
justifies
'enterprise' kit - but plenty of people can benefit from something a
step up from
SQLite.
If you just want to benchmark query processor efficiency then that's one
scenario
where taking physical IO out of the picture might be justified, but I
don't see a good
reason to suggest that it is 'common sense' to do so for all testing,
and while the
hardware involved is pretty low end, its still a valid data point.
.
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
