TPC-E in Caché

I work in a small development company that uses Caché as a database. In some support cases I have doubts about whether the client's infrastructure environment is not affecting Caché's response time. Reading a bit about comparing installations in different environments, both in production as testing and homologation environments , I understood that the TPC-E is a benchmarking method accepted in the market.
I'm reading the specifications of the TPC-E and I wonder if anyone has implemented or seen something similar in Caché. Does it make sense to think about using this type of test to understand and study Caché's installation environments? Thanks!

  • 0
  • 0
  • 209
  • 4
  • 0

Comments

Hello Eduardo,
Thanks for the tip! I had read some of the articles and they are all great, all very good. I'm sure I'll use the knowledge of the @murray articles to add to my support and scaling activities. There are articles that @murray explain how to compare two different server proccessors, but how to understand the server as a whole?

I would like to find a method of comparing two different infrastructure environments. My clients create different workloads profiles during their production, so compare those servers is very difficult for me. I would like to have a standardized and well-accepted formula for:
- understand the power of a new server before deploying my system;
- understand the server / envoriment response after a change, such as a hardware upgrade or software parameterization.
Possible physical and logical bottlenecks can be evidenced even before testing on my application by the client or my team. I think that even though it does not contain the details of my system usage, that kind of tool can create parameters for future analysis. 
My question is whether TPC-E can be used as a solution for these cases. Is there a similar tool for the Caché world?

Victor, are you referring to TPC-C and TPC-E ? You wrote "TCP" in your title and message. Hint: if necessary, you can edit both of those.

Hi John, 

Yeah, you're right, sorry guys! Both edited, thanks!