On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Pavan Deolasee
> 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
>> 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.
What kind of bottleneck?
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: David Fetter||Date: 2011-07-26 16:27:59|
|Subject: Re: vacuumlo patch|
|Previous:||From: Florian Pflug||Date: 2011-07-26 16:19:04|
|Subject: Re: Another issue with invalid XML values|