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 number of rows.
> You might want to try -N option of pgbench. It avoids updates to
> branches and tellers tables.

Cool.  Do you feel this will noticeable increase the consistency of the

The inconsistency of the internal benchmark results means that
pg_autotune has been using 5-run averages, and using a large tolerance
factor by default.  It would be good to improving on that.


Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

> --
> Tatsuo Ishii

"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
   - Indira Gandhi

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to