David Kerr <dmk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > should i be running pgbench differently? I tried increasing the # of threads > but that didn't increase the number of backend's and i'm trying to simulate > 2000 physical backend processes. The odds are good that if you did get up that high, what you'd find is pgbench itself being the bottleneck, not the server. What I'd suggest is running several copies of pgbench *on different machines*, all beating on the one database server. Collating the results will be a bit more of a PITA than if there were only one pgbench instance, but it'd be a truer picture of real-world behavior. It's probably also worth pointing out that 2000 backend processes is likely to be a loser anyhow. If you're just doing this for academic purposes, fine, but if you're trying to set up a real system for 2000 clients you almost certainly want to stick some connection pooling in there. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
