| From: | Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Bort, Paul" <pbort(at)tmwsystems(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Adding a pgbench run to buildfarm |
| Date: | 2006-07-24 04:24:50 |
| Message-ID: | 44C44B92.4010706@paradise.net.nz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Bort, Paul" <pbort(at)tmwsystems(dot)com> writes:
>> Andrew said I should solicit opinions as to what parameters to use. A
>> cursory search through the archives led me to pick a scaling factor of
>> 10, 5 users, and 100 transactions.
>
> 100 transactions seems barely enough to get through startup transients.
> Maybe 1000 would be good.
>
Scale factor 10 produces an accounts table of about 130 Mb. Given that
most HW these days has at least 1G of ram, this probably means not much
retrieval IO is tested (only checkpoint and wal fsync). Do we want to
try 100 or even 200? (or recommend scale factor such that size > ram)?
Cheers
Mark
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bort, Paul | 2006-07-24 04:40:35 | Re: Adding a pgbench run to buildfarm |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-07-24 04:08:13 | Re: why toast tables are not reindexed while clustering? |