(Re)-Design it to do both, unless there's reason to believe that doing one after the other would skew the results. Then old results are available, new results are also visible and useful for future comparisons. And seeing them side by side mught be an interesting exercise as well, at least for a while. (sorry for top-posting -- web based interface that doesn't do proper quoting) Greg Williamson DBA GlobeXplorer LLC -----Original Message----- From: pgsql-performance-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Michael Glaesemann Sent: Wed 12/13/2006 10:11 PM To: Tom Lane Cc: Joshua D. Drake; Josh Berkus; pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Bruce Momjian; Alvaro Herrera; Alexander Staubo; Michael Stone Subject: Re: [PERFORM] New to PostgreSQL, performance considerations 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 ------------------------------------------------------- Click link below if it is SPAM gsw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx "https://mailscanner.globexplorer.com/dspam/dspam.cgi?signatureID=4580ea76236074356172766&user=gsw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx&retrain=spam&template=history&history_page=1"; !DSPAM:4580ea76236074356172766! -------------------------------------------------------
