Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:09:47 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gy=F6rgy_Vilmos?= <vilmos.gyorgy@gmail.com> To: Francisco Reyes <lists@stringsutils.com> Cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Performance evaluation of PostgreSQL's historic releases Message-ID: <dac6660e0909301109q74d98df9n86979798ea10bdcf@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <cone.1254243035.821484.79872.1000@zoraida.natserv.net> References: <dac6660e0909290040k5e0ac9a0mafe4e484802f8429@mail.gmail.com> <cone.1254243035.821484.79872.1000@zoraida.natserv.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2009/9/29 Francisco Reyes <lists@stringsutils.com> > Gy=F6rgy Vilmos writes: > > I've done a benchmark of recent versions of PostgreSQL's last five major >> releases to see how performance has changed during the past years from >> version to version. >> > > Thanks! > Very interesting. > Did you share it with the Postgresql list yet? > I think they would find it very interesting. > > Any plans on doing simmilar tests with data that does not fit in memory? > Also could you share what settings were used for postgres? Where any > defaults changed? Effective memory, shared_buffers, etc... any of them > adjusted for the machine's memory? > I've updated the article with the used config. With this machine everything would fit in memory (72G disk versus 128 G RAM :). Of course I could artificially limit it... --=20 http://suckit.blog.hu/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?dac6660e0909301109q74d98df9n86979798ea10bdcf>