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

Re: write scalability

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(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 16:24:51
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Pavan Deolasee
<pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> 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.

What kind of bottleneck?

Robert Haas
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: David FetterDate: 2011-07-26 16:27:59
Subject: Re: vacuumlo patch
Previous:From: Florian PflugDate: 2011-07-26 16:19:04
Subject: Re: Another issue with invalid XML values

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group