| From: | "Christopher Kings-Lynne" <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Gavin Sherry" <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | "Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Advocacy" <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Tuning Results |
| Date: | 2003-02-12 05:35:38 |
| Message-ID: | GNELIHDDFBOCMGBFGEFOMEICCFAA.chriskl@familyhealth.com.au |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
> > Machine:
> > 256MB RAM, FreeBSD 4.7, EIDE HDD, > 1 Ghz
>
> Seems like a small amount of memory to be memory based tests with.
Perhaps, but I'm benchmarking for that machine, not for any other. The
results have to include the 256MB spec.
Also, the peak was 25MB of SHM, which still leave 231MB for the rest of the
system, so surely RAM is not the bottleneck here?
> What about testing sort_mem as well. It would system to me that there
> would be no negative to having infinite sort_mem given infinite memory,
> though.
Yeah, however I'm pretty sure that pgbench doesn't perform any sorts.
I reckon that sort_mem is the hardest thing to optimise1
Chris
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shridhar Daithankar<shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in> | 2003-02-12 06:14:54 | Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL Benchmarks |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-02-12 05:33:52 | Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re: |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-02-12 05:51:22 | Re: Projection while performing joins. |
| Previous Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-02-12 05:33:52 | Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration (was Re: |