m...@bortal.de wrote:
Hi Greg,
thanks a lot for your hints. I changed my config and changed raid6 to
raid10, but whatever i do, the benchmark breaks down at a scaling
factor 75 where the database is "only" 1126MB big.
Here are my benchmark Results (scaling factor, DB size in MB, TPS) using
On 3/19/09 2:25 PM, "m...@bortal.de" wrote:
>
> Here is my config (maybe with some odd setting):
> http://pastebin.com/m5d7f5717
>
> I played around with:
> - max_connections
> - shared_buffers
> - work_mem
> - maintenance_work_mem
> - checkpoint_segments
> - effective_cache_size
>
> ..but wh
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 3:25 PM, m...@bortal.de wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> thanks a lot for your hints. I changed my config and changed raid6 to
> raid10, but whatever i do, the benchmark breaks down at a scaling factor 75
> where the database is "only" 1126MB big.
>
> Here are my benchmark Results (sc
Hi Greg,
thanks a lot for your hints. I changed my config and changed raid6 to
raid10, but whatever i do, the benchmark breaks down at a scaling factor
75 where the database is "only" 1126MB big.
Here are my benchmark Results (scaling factor, DB size in MB, TPS) using:
pgbench -S -c X -t
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:17 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Gregory Stark wrote:
>
>> I think pgbench is just not that great a model for real-world usage
>
> pgbench's default workload isn't a good model for anything. It wasn't a
> particularly real-world test when the TPC-B it's b
On Tue, 17 Mar 2009, Gregory Stark wrote:
I think pgbench is just not that great a model for real-world usage
pgbench's default workload isn't a good model for anything. It wasn't a
particularly real-world test when the TPC-B it's based on was created, and
that was way back in 1990. And pg
Greg Smith writes:
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Gregory Stark wrote:
>
>> Why would checkpoints force out any data? It would dirty those pages and then
>> sync the files marking them clean, but they should still live on in the
>> filesystem cache.
>
> The bulk of the buffer churn in pgbench is from the
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Gregory Stark wrote:
Why would checkpoints force out any data? It would dirty those pages and then
sync the files marking them clean, but they should still live on in the
filesystem cache.
The bulk of the buffer churn in pgbench is from the statement that updates
a row in
Greg Smith writes:
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, m...@bortal.de wrote:
>
>> Any idea why my performance colapses at 2GB Database size?
I don't understand how you get that graph from the data above. The data above
seems to show your test databases at 1.4GB and 2.9GB. There are no 1GB and 2GB
data points
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, m...@bortal.de wrote:
Any idea why my performance colapses at 2GB Database size?
pgbench results follow a general curve I outlined at
http://www.westnet.com/~gsmith/content/postgresql/pgbench-scaling.htm and
the spot where performance drops hard depends on how big of a w
Hello List,
i would like to pimp my postgres setup. To make sure i dont have a slow
hardware, i tested it on three diffrent enviorments:
1.) Native Debian Linux (Dom0) and 4GB of RAM
2.) Debian Linux in Xen (DomU) 4GB of RAM
3.) Blade with SSD Disk 8GB of RAM
Here are my results: http://i39.ti
11 matches
Mail list logo
