Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> "Bort, Paul" <pbort@tmwsystems.com> writes:
>>> Andrew said I should solicit opinions as to what parameters to use. A
>>> cursory search through the archives led me to pick a scaling factor of
>>> 10, 5 users, and 100 transactions.
>>
>> 100 transactions seems barely enough to get through startup transients.
>> Maybe 1000 would be good.
>>
>
> Scale factor 10 produces an accounts table of about 130 Mb. Given that
> most HW these days has at least 1G of ram, this probably means not much
> retrieval IO is tested (only checkpoint and wal fsync). Do we want to
> try 100 or even 200? (or recommend scale factor such that size > ram)?
hmm - that "1GB" is a rather optimistic estimate for most of the
buildfarm boxes(mine at least).
Out of the 6 ones I have - only one that actually has much RAM
(allocated) and lionfish for example is rather resource starved at only
48(!) MB of RAM and very limited diskspace - which has been plenty
enough until now doing the builds (with enough swap of course).
I supposed that anything that would result in additional diskspace usage
in excess of maybe 150MB or so would run it out of resources :-(
I'm also not too keen on running excessivly long pgbench runs on some of
the buildfarm members so I would prefer to make that one optional.
Stefan
