From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Jignesh K. Shah <J.K.Shah@Sun.COM>
Cc: Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Benchmark Data requested
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 09:08:14 +0000
Message-ID: <1202202494.4252.631.camel@ebony.site> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <47A797E5.4000507@sun.com>
References: <1202150236.4252.521.camel@ebony.site>
<Pine.GSO.4.64.0802041500460.799@westnet.com>
<47A797E5.4000507@sun.com>
On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 17:55 -0500, Jignesh K. Shah wrote:
> Doing it at low scales is not attractive.
>
> Commercial databases are publishing at scale factor of 1000(about 1TB)
> to 10000(10TB) with one in 30TB space. So ideally right now tuning
> should start at 1000 scale factor.
I don't understand this. Sun is currently publishing results at 100GB,
300GB etc.. Why would we ignore those and go for much higher numbers?
Especially when you explain why we wouldn't be able to. There isn't any
currently valid result above 10 TB.
If anybody is going to run tests in response to my request, then *any*
scale factor is interesting, on any hardware. If that means Scale Factor
1, 3, 10 or 30 then that's fine by me.
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: simon@2ndquadrant.com, J.K.Shah@Sun.COM, gsmith@gregsmith.com
Subject: Re: Benchmark Data requested
In-Reply-To: <1202202494.4252.631.camel@ebony.site>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox