> Holy ultra-violet-active macaronies :)
>
> First I changed it to 256, then I changed it to 1024.
>
> -B 128 is A
> -B 256 is B
> -B 1024 is C
>
> New multiple-index performance data):
>
> 1. A: 36 B: 32 C: 35
> 2. A: 69 B: 53 C: 38
> 3. A: 97 B: 79 C: 40
> 4. A: 131 B: 98 C: 48
> 5. A: 163 B: 124 C: 52
> 6. A: 210 B: 146 C: 66
> 7. A: 319 B: 233 C: 149
> 8. A: 572 B: 438 C: 268
> 9. A: 831 B: 655 C:
> 10. A: 1219 B: 896 C:
>
> The last test hasn't finished yet, but THANKS! I know the reson now, at
> least... i'll try
> 2048 also.
Strange that even at 1024 performance still drops off at 7. Seems it
may be more than buffer thrashing.
> -B equals --brutal-performance ? ;)
See my performance article on techdocs.postgresql.org.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
