From: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: write scalability |
Date: | 2011-07-26 15:40:36 |
Message-ID: | CABOikdMMvnKPf-6co_NSjoXiyEG6aFgT-vJ_9W3R1-mewkne8w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:07 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 07/25/2011 04:07 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>
>>> I did 5-minute pgbench runs with unlogged tables and with permanent
>>> tables, restarting the database server and reinitializing the tables
>>> between each run.
>>
>> Database scale? One or multiple pgbench worker threads? A reminder on the
>> amount of RAM in the server would be helpful for interpreting the results
>> too.
>
> Ah, sorry. scale = 100, so small. pgbench invocation is:
>
It might be worthwhile to test only with the accounts and history
table and also increasing the number of statements in a transaction.
Otherwise the tiny tables can quickly become a bottleneck.
Thanks,
Pavan
--
Pavan Deolasee
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Fetter | 2011-07-26 15:51:32 | Re: Check constraints on partition parents only? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-07-26 15:36:23 | Re: Another issue with invalid XML values |