Mark Kirkwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Scale factor 10 produces an accounts table of about 130 Mb. Given that
> most HW these days has at least 1G of ram, this probably means not much
> retrieval IO is tested (only checkpoint and wal fsync). Do we want to
> try 100 or even 200? (or recommend scale factor such that size > ram)?
That gets into a different set of questions, which is what we want the
buildfarm turnaround time to be like. The faster members today produce
a result within 10-15 minutes of pulling their CVS snaps, and I'd be
seriously unhappy if that changed to an hour or three. Maybe we need to
divorce compile/regression tests from performance tests?
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
