On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> the default -B is way too small for WAL.
OK, here are some 2.4 numbers with 1K transactions/client
and -B10240.
> Huh? With the exception of the 16-user case (possibly measurement
> noise), 2.4 looks better across the board, AFAICS. But see below.
OK.
Matthew Kirkwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> No options changed from defaults. (I'll look at
> that tomorrow -- is there anything worth changing other than
> commit_delay and fsync?)
-B for sure ... the default -B is way too small for WAL.
> Firstly, it looks like 2.4 is mixed news for heavy
Hi,
Not sure if anyone will find this of interest, but I ran
pgbench on my main Linux box to see what sort of performance
difference might be visible between 2.2 and 2.4 kernels.
Hardware: A dual P3-450 with 384Mb of RAM and 3 SCSI disks.
The pg datafiles live in a half-gig partition on the firs
