On Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 04:37:34PM -0400, Yohanes Santoso wrote:
> > All of this goes to uphold Tom's general assertion that the default of 4 is
> > more or less correct
>
> Doesn't this show that 4:1 is a pretty optimistic value considering
> that no long-running db files are fragmentation-free
Yohanes Santoso wrote:
I then ran it on various database size on a software 2 7200RPM IDE
RAID-1 volume. I found out that if the dbase size (as from du
) is less than about 500M, I got a ratio of 4.5:1. On a
larger dbase, 3GB, the ratio increases to 10:1.
Surely this is going to be a fun
I talked with neilc in #postgresql about a tool that may help in
determining a suitable rpc value. If rpc is just ratio of random cost
vs. sequential cost, then I can write such a tool. So I did.
The tool takes a directory and do sequential read on all the files
there, followed by exhaustive (each
Josh Berkus writes:
>> I tested the db files residing on a software RAID-1 composed of 2 IDE
>> 7200rpm drives on linux 2.6.12.
>
> FWIW, most performance-conscious users will be using a SCSI RAID
> array.
No worry, I'm not out to squeeze every little juice from a particular
installation, which
Yohanes,
> Yesterday in #pgsql, I was talking with neilc about determining rpc
> value in a more concrete way. So I created a program that compares
> exhaustive (all blocks are eventually read) random reads with
> sequential reads. The full source is attached.
Thanks for code.
> I tested the db
[To admin: this message was posted earlier via google group. needless
to say, it was stalled waiting for approval, please ignore that
one. Thanks.]
Hi,
Yesterday in #pgsql, I was talking with neilc about determining rpc
value in a more concrete way. So I created a program that compares
exhaustive
