On Thu, 2003-02-13 at 00:16, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote: > Even if you look at the attached charts and you think that 128 buffers are > better than 8, think again - there's nothing in it. Next time I run that > benchmark it could be the same, lower or higher. And the difference between > the worst and best results is less than 3 TPS - ie. nothing.
One could conclude that this a result of the irrelevancy of wal_buffers; another possible conclusion is that the testing tool (pgbench) is not a particularly good database benchmark, as it tends to be very difficult to use it to reproduceable results. Alternatively, it's possible that the limited set of test-cases you've used doesn't happen to include any circumstances in which wal_buffers is useful. We definitely need some better benchmarking tools for PostgreSQL (and no, OSDB does not cut it, IMHO). I've been thinking of taking a look at improving this, but I can't promise I'll get the time or inclination to actually do anything about it :-) Cheers, Neil -- Neil Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> || PGP Key ID: DB3C29FC ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
