Yes, those parameters are based on a series of test results here: http://www.osdl.org/projects/dbt2dev/results/pgsql/rc4.html
Run 264 provided the best results, so I'm trying to continue with the database parameters used there. Mark On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 10:41:57AM -0500, Dave Cramer wrote: > I was just looking at the config parameters, and you have the shared > buffers set to 60k, and the effective cache set to 1k ???? > > Dave > > Mark Wong wrote: > > >On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 05:17:07PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > > > > > >>Mark Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> > >>>On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 04:57:11PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>Curious. The immediate question is "does it ever flatten out, and > >>>>if so at what TPM rate compared to 8.0.1?" Could you run the same > >>>>test for a longer duration? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>The comparison was against 8.0.1, or did you mean 8.0.1 with the 2Q > >>>patch? I can run a longer duration and see how it looks. > >>> > >>> > >>My point was that unpatched 8.0.1 seems to have a pretty level TPM > >>rate. If the patched version levels out at something not far below > >>that, I'll be satisfied. If it continues to degrade then I won't be > >>satisfied ... but the test stops short of telling what will happen. > >>If you could run it for 2 hours then we'd probably know enough. > >> > >> > > > >Ah, ok. I've reapplied the 2Q patch to CVS from 20050301: > > http://www.osdl.org/projects/dbt2dev/results/dev4-010/313/ > > > >I ran it for 3 hours, just in case, and the charts suggest it flattens > >out after 2 hours. > > > >Mark ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq