| From: | Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joost Kraaijeveld <J(dot)Kraaijeveld(at)Askesis(dot)nl> |
| Cc: | "Pgsql-Performance (E-mail)" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Can anyone explain this pgbench results? |
| Date: | 2006-03-06 20:17:16 |
| Message-ID: | 20060306201716.GA14663@winnie.fuhr.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, Mar 06, 2006 at 07:46:05PM +0100, Joost Kraaijeveld wrote:
> Michael Fuhr wrote:
> > What's your setting?
>
> Default.
Have you tweaked postgresql.conf at all? If so, what non-default
settings are you using?
> > Are your test results more consistent
> > if you execute CHECKPOINT between them?
>
> Could you tell me how I could do that?
Connect to the database as a superuser and execute a CHECKPOINT
statement.
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/8.1/interactive/sql-checkpoint.html
From the command line you could do something like
psql -c checkpoint
pgbench -c 10 -t 150 test
psql -c checkpoint
pgbench -c 10 -t 150 test
psql -c checkpoint
pgbench -c 10 -t 150 test
--
Michael Fuhr
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ragnar | 2006-03-06 20:51:46 | Re: Sequencial scan instead of using index |
| Previous Message | Jignesh K. Shah | 2006-03-06 20:10:53 | Re: t1000/t2000 sun-servers |