On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deola...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 9:07 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 10:14 PM, Greg Smith <g...@2ndquadrant.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 EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
