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

Re: Load distributed checkpoint

From: "Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>
To: "Takayuki Tsunakawa" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>,"ITAGAKI Takahiro" <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Load distributed checkpoint
Date: 2006-12-21 14:04:13
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
> > You were running the test on the very memory-depend machine.
> >> shared_buffers = 4GB / The scaling factor is 50, 800MB of data.
> > Thet would be why the patch did not work. I tested it with DBT-2,
10GB of
> > data and 2GB of memory. Storage is always the main part of
performace here,
> > even not in checkpoints.
> Yes, I used half the size of RAM as the shared buffers, which is
> reasonable.  And I cached all the data.

For pg, half RAM for shared_buffers is too much. The ratio is good for
other db software, that does not use the OS cache.


In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Richard HuxtonDate: 2006-12-21 14:08:00
Subject: Re: Tuning single row operations
Previous:From: D'Arcy J.M. CainDate: 2006-12-21 13:39:19
Subject: Re: New version of money type

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SDDate: 2006-12-21 14:39:07
Subject: Re: column ordering, was Re: [PATCHES] Enums patch v2
Previous:From: Takayuki TsunakawaDate: 2006-12-21 10:29:13
Subject: Re: Load distributed checkpoint

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group