Re: Re: Great Bridge benchmark results for Postgres, 4 others

From: Ned Lilly <ned(at)greatbridge(dot)com>
To: Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)i4free(dot)co(dot)nz>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)hub(dot)org, bryan(at)arcamax(dot)com, Richard Brosnahan <rbrosnahan(at)xperts(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Re: Great Bridge benchmark results for Postgres, 4 others
Date: 2000-08-15 16:27:41
Message-ID: 39996F7D.CD725E1@greatbridge.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Mark Kirkwood wrote:

> In a related vein, is it possible that any relevant database parameter settings might be
> published to help folk get the best out of their Postgresql systems ? ( apologies if they are
> there and I missed them )

Hi Mark, here's some more info from the lead engineer on the project for Xperts, Richard Brosnahan
(cc'ed here). Please feel free to contact him directly.

--

With PostgreSQL, we increased the size of the cache, and increased the
number of simultaneous users. We did this by starting the database with a
command that included parameters for this purpose. Out of the box,
PostgreSQL is very conservative with resource use, and thus only allows 32
simultaneous connections. Increasing the number of simultaneous users
requires an increase in cache size. This boost in cache size also boosts
performace by a small margin.

We also executed a process called "vacuum analyze" after loading the tables,
but before the test. This process optimizes indexes and frees up disk space
a bit. The optimized indexes boost performance by some margin.

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ned Lilly 2000-08-15 16:29:11 Re: Great Bridge benchmark results for Postgres, 4 others
Previous Message Ned Lilly 2000-08-15 16:23:40 Re: Great Bridge benchmark results for Postgres, 4 others