| From: | Jim Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ryan Cumming <ryan(dot)cumming(at)neverbluemedia(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Trivial HugeTLB Benchmark |
| Date: | 2007-03-08 04:33:57 |
| Message-ID: | FA8C7488-BE7B-401D-83AA-9865B769F7B0@decibel.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mar 4, 2007, at 3:33 PM, Ryan Cumming wrote:
> I did another 18 runs, 9 each for huge pages and normal shared memory.
> The database was reinitialized before every third run with "pgbench -i
> -s 10". The runs themselves were done with "pgbench -s 10 -c 5 -t
> 10000"
Rather than doing that, I think you'd be much better off just running
a very long benchmark and turning on autovaccum. That would at least
be closer to real-world usage.
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-03-08 05:49:02 | Re: Proposed ProcessUtility() API additions |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2007-03-08 04:33:46 | Re: Log levels for checkpoint/bgwriter monitoring |