On 05/07/2014 01:36 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: > On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote:
>> Unfortunately nobody has the time/resources to do the kind of testing >> required for a new recommendation for shared_buffers. > I think it is worse than that. I don't think we know what such testing > would even look like. SSD? BBU? max_connections=20000 with 256 cores? > pgbench -N? capture and replay of Amazon's workload? > > If we could spell out/agree upon what kind of testing we would find > convincing, that would probably go a long way to getting some people to > work on carrying out the tests. Unless the conclusion was "please have 3TB > or RAM and a 50 disk RAID", then there might be few takers. Well, step #1 would be writing some easy-to-run benchmarks which carry out selected workloads and measure response times. The minimum starting set would include one OLTP/Web benchmark, and one DW benchmark. I'm not talking about the software to run the workload; we have that, in several varieties. I'm talking about the actual database generator and queries to run. That's the hard work. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. http://pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
