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.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: David Fetter||Date: 2011-07-26 15:51:32|
|Subject: Re: Check constraints on partition parents only?|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-07-26 15:36:23|
|Subject: Re: Another issue with invalid XML values |