On 09/13/2011 03:13 PM, Samuel Gendler wrote:
Bonnie++ delivered the expected huge throughput for sequential read and write. It seems in line with other benchmarks I found online. However, we are only seeing 180 seeks/sec, but seems quite low.
I wouldn't worry about that if the sequential rates are good. The bonnie++ seeks test has been giving me increasingly useless results recently on modern hardware. And bonnie++ 1.96 continues to give me enough weird values that I'm still using 1.03e as my standard version.
If you want to get a useful measurement of seeks/second, setup pgbench-tools with a SELECT-only test, and create a database that's 2 to 4X as big as RAM. The TPS result you get from that is a much more useful number for real-world seeks than this.
I'm working on a tool to directly benchmark seek performance in a way that's useful for what people really want to know nowadays. That's going live to the world at the end of the month, at #PgWest: http://pgwest2011.sched.org/event/875b87d8d237bef3a53ab27ac9c8057c
-- Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant US g...@2ndquadrant.com Baltimore, MD PostgreSQL Training, Services, and 24x7 Support www.2ndQuadrant.us -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
