Hi Adam,
There are a few links to benchmark-type things you might find useful at
:
http://techdocs.postgresql.org/oresources.php#benchmark
Hope they're useful.
:-)
Regards and best wishes,
Justin Clift
Adam Manock wrote:
>
> >This is almost certainly a lousy idea. You do *not* want to chew up all
> >available memory for PG shared buffers; you should leave a good deal of
> >space for kernel-level disk buffers.
>
> I decided to start high on buffers because of Bruce's:
> http://www.ca.postgresql.org/docs/hw_performance/
> From that I get the impression that operations using kernel disk buffer
> cache are considerably more expensive than if the data was in shared
> buffer cache, and that increasing PG's memory usage until the system
> is almost using swap is The Right Thing To Do. Has anyone got real
> world test data to confirm or refute this??
> If not, then I am going to need to find or create a benchmarking program
> to load down PG against a fake multi-gigabyte "production" database.
> Or I could wait a week to see what RedHat does to tune their
> implementation of PG :-)
>
> Adam
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
