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. Thanks, Pavan -- Pavan Deolasee EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
