"Schmidt, Peter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I tried -B 1024 and got roughly the same results (~50 tps). What were you using before? > However, when I change WAL option commit_delay from the default of 5 > to 0, I get ~200 tps (which is double what I get with 7.03). I'm not > sure I want to do this, do I? Hmm. There have been several discussions about whether CommitDelay is a good idea or not. What happens if you vary it --- try 1 microsecond, and then various multiples of 1000. I suspect you may find that there is no difference in the range 1..10000, then a step, then no change up to 20000. In other words, your kernel may be rounding the delay up to the next multiple of a clock tick, which might be 10 milliseconds. That would explain a 50-tps limit real well... BTW, have you tried pgbench with multiple clients (-c) rather than just one? regards, tom lane
- Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance Karel Zak
- RE: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance Michael Ansley
- RE: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance Schmidt, Peter
- Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance Bruce Momjian
- RE: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance Schmidt, Peter
- Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance Bruce Momjian
- Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance Tom Lane
- RE: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance Schmidt, Peter
- Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance Tom Lane
- RE: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance Schmidt, Peter
- Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance Tom Lane
- Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance Bruce Momjian
- Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance Bruce Momjian
- RE: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance Schmidt, Peter
- Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance Bruce Momjian
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance Tatsuo Ishii
- Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance Thomas Lockhart
- Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance Tatsuo Ishii
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance Hiroshi Inoue
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance Hiroshi Inoue
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performa... Hiroshi Inoue