Mark Kirkwood wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> "Bort, Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Andrew said I should solicit opinions as to what parameters to use. A >>> cursory search through the archives led me to pick a scaling factor of >>> 10, 5 users, and 100 transactions. >> >> 100 transactions seems barely enough to get through startup transients. >> Maybe 1000 would be good. >> > > 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)?
hmm - that "1GB" is a rather optimistic estimate for most of the buildfarm boxes(mine at least). Out of the 6 ones I have - only one that actually has much RAM (allocated) and lionfish for example is rather resource starved at only 48(!) MB of RAM and very limited diskspace - which has been plenty enough until now doing the builds (with enough swap of course). I supposed that anything that would result in additional diskspace usage in excess of maybe 150MB or so would run it out of resources :-( I'm also not too keen on running excessivly long pgbench runs on some of the buildfarm members so I would prefer to make that one optional. Stefan ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
