Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>
> > You should have chosen a better foundation. pg_bench is notorious for
> > producing results that are (a) nonrepeatable and (b) not relevant to
> > a wide variety of situations. All it really tells you about is the
> > efficiency of a large number of updates to a small
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Justin Clift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Have been putting together a tool called "pg_autotune" for automatically
> > tuning a PostgreSQL database (either local or remote). It does this by
> > repetitively benchmarking PostgreSQL (using Tatsuo's pgbench code) with
> > dif
Justin Clift <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Have been putting together a tool called "pg_autotune" for automatically
> tuning a PostgreSQL database (either local or remote). It does this by
> repetitively benchmarking PostgreSQL (using Tatsuo's pgbench code) with
> different buffer settings, then
