The result is that the default config is already very good for our benchmark. There is no visible difference between the old and new config when running the benchmark. We will publish an update to the blog post and show the numbers using the tuned config.
best Frank
DBVersion: 10 Linux, Type: "Mixed type of Applications" 122GB RAM 25 Connections SSD Storage
=>
max_connections = 25 shared_buffers = 31232MB effective_cache_size = 93696MB work_mem = 639631kB maintenance_work_mem = 2GB min_wal_size = 1GB max_wal_size = 2GB checkpoint_completion_target = 0.9 wal_buffers = 16MB default_statistics_target = 100 random_page_cost = 1.1
You may have to run a utility, or edit a config file, but a new system must be configured to fully utilize available hardware, and for the expected workload.
A benchmark run on default config is at best misleading - it smells like marketing spam. You actually dampen interest in a forum like this with such an approach.
The more common pgtune CLI is not up to date for PostgreSQL 10+ at this time.
Also there are some old, open issues that indicate the benchmarks have problems:
- https://github.com/weinberger/nosql-tests/issues/16 - https://github.com/weinberger/nosql-tests/issues/13
Not really true any more. Many of the newer databases (e.g. Mongo) and database-like systems (e.g. Elasticsearch) try to give a good default experience.
Typically with PostgreSQL, you have to expand the defaults when running on modern server class hardware, so the engine uses enough RAM. Simply letting it use all RAM available can be problematic, since the DB engine and OS have to fight for cache, etc.
Java based systems like Elastic might still need JVM tuning, especially with a distributed platform like ES, which might be run in a large number of small machines, a smaller number of large machines, or containers.
But for many people databases have become commodity applications that they install and then forget. So even in reality not all installments will be properly tuned.
I know it happens because I inherit them often. But seriously knock it off.
Errrrr. Better yet don’t, job stability.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
It seems unlikely to me that this group of people would reach benchmark posts.
Why? Because nobody who cares about performance runs their database with default configuration. Plus some databases, like PostgreSQL are well known to have very conservative settings. So benchmarking with the defaults like that is knowingly trying to make your product look better than it is. You didn't know? Then what are you doing benchmarking databases?!?
Seriously, this is shady as hell.