Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: write scalability

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 (view raw or flat)
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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: David FetterDate: 2011-07-26 15:51:32
Subject: Re: Check constraints on partition parents only?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2011-07-26 15:36:23
Subject: Re: Another issue with invalid XML values

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group