Yes, those parameters are based on a series of test results
here:http://www.osdl.org/projects/dbt2dev/results/pgsql/rc4.html
Run 264 provided the best results, so I'm trying to continue with the
database parameters used there.
Mark
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 10:41:57AM -0500, Dave Cramer wrote:
> I was just looking at the config parameters, and you have the shared
> buffers set to 60k, and the effective cache set to 1k ????
>
> Dave
>
> Mark Wong wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 05:17:07PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Mark Wong <markw@osdl.org> writes:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 04:57:11PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Curious. The immediate question is "does it ever flatten out, and
> >>>>if so at what TPM rate compared to 8.0.1?" Could you run the same
> >>>>test for a longer duration?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>The comparison was against 8.0.1, or did you mean 8.0.1 with the 2Q
> >>>patch? I can run a longer duration and see how it looks.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>My point was that unpatched 8.0.1 seems to have a pretty level TPM
> >>rate. If the patched version levels out at something not far below
> >>that, I'll be satisfied. If it continues to degrade then I won't be
> >>satisfied ... but the test stops short of telling what will happen.
> >>If you could run it for 2 hours then we'd probably know enough.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Ah, ok. I've reapplied the 2Q patch to CVS from 20050301:
> > http://www.osdl.org/projects/dbt2dev/results/dev4-010/313/
> >
> >I ran it for 3 hours, just in case, and the charts suggest it flattens
> >out after 2 hours.
> >
> >Mark
