On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Chris Angelico <rosuav@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Steve Crawford > <scrawford@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Don't do that. Defaults are good for ensuring that PostgreSQL will start on >> the widest reasonable variety of systems. They are *terrible* for >> performance and are certainly wrong for the system you describe. > > Tuning a PostgreSQL database is a major science, but is there a > reasonably easy way to get a stable baseline for comparison? We've > been exploring different hosting options recently, and one thing we > want to know is how well Postgres will perform. To that end, we've > been using pgbench on a default configuration Postgres, on the > expectation that that'll at least be consistent (that is, if a Cloud > Host A instance does X tps and Cloud Host B does 2*X, then we can > expect host B to deliver roughly double performance in production). > How valid is this assumption? Broadly, or totally not? Totally not. With default settings and default pgbench, the easiest way for host B to beat host A is by lying about the durability of fsync. Cheers, Jeff -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
