| From: | Lucas Lersch <lucaslersch(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Buffer Requests Trace |
| Date: | 2014-10-15 13:22:45 |
| Message-ID: | CAGR3jZBW3-=B-_PhbNv9i-pCeLj3gdo1+iZELW0Cr00Wr3fxzg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
So is it a possible normal behavior that running tpcc for 10min only access
50% of the database? Furthermore, is there a guideline of parameters for
tpcc (# of warehouses, execution time, operations weight)?
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 3:09 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 15 October 2014 13:44, Lucas Lersch <lucaslersch(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > I am recording the BufferDesc.tag.blockNum for the buffer along with the
> > spcNode, dbNode, relNode, also present in the tag.
>
> The TPC-C I/O is random, so if you run it for longer you should see a
> wider set.
>
> Cacheing isn't possible as a way to improve txn rates.
>
> Check that you're touching all tables.
>
> --
> Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
>
--
Lucas Lersch
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2014-10-15 13:31:05 | Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2014-10-15 13:09:55 | Re: Buffer Requests Trace |