I was just looking at the config parameters, and you have the shared
buffers set to 60k, and the effective cache set to 1k ????
Mark Wong wrote:
>On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 05:17:07PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>Mark Wong <markw(at)osdl(dot)org> writes:
>>>On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 04:57:11PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>>>>Curious. The immediate question is "does it ever flatten out, and
>>>>if so at what TPM rate compared to 8.0.1?" Could you run the same
>>>>test for a longer duration?
>>>The comparison was against 8.0.1, or did you mean 8.0.1 with the 2Q
>>>patch? I can run a longer duration and see how it looks.
>>My point was that unpatched 8.0.1 seems to have a pretty level TPM
>>rate. If the patched version levels out at something not far below
>>that, I'll be satisfied. If it continues to degrade then I won't be
>>satisfied ... but the test stops short of telling what will happen.
>>If you could run it for 2 hours then we'd probably know enough.
>Ah, ok. I've reapplied the 2Q patch to CVS from 20050301:
>I ran it for 3 hours, just in case, and the charts suggest it flattens
>out after 2 hours.
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
519 939 0336
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Wes||Date: 2005-03-02 15:46:46|
|Subject: Re: Vacuum time degrading |
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2005-03-02 15:41:00|
|Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] snprintf causes regression tests|