Received: from maia.hub.org (unknown [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 023A36366CD for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 07:29:37 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 15249-02 for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 10:29:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from smtp1.hi-media-techno.com (smtp1.hi-media-techno.com [195.158.241.85]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44FAD6322DD for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 07:29:25 -0300 (ADT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.hi-media-techno.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D75D493BF3; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:29:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp1.hi-media-techno.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.backbone.hi-media-techno.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W4nkt4BrUIB5; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:29:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail1.hi-media-techno.com (unknown [192.168.27.17]) by smtp1.hi-media-techno.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89EAB93B8C; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:29:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail1.hi-media-techno.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 857F37952A; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:29:22 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail1.hi-media-techno.com Received: from mail1.hi-media-techno.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail1.hi-media-techno.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id haqShiCygmFF; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:29:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from dim (unknown [83.167.62.196]) by mail1.hi-media-techno.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3FB8679529; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:29:22 +0100 (CET) Received: by dim (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 700D513F5F; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:24:25 +0100 (CET) From: Dimitri Fontaine To: Greg Smith Cc: Alvaro Herrera , Greg Stark , Tom Lane , Pierre C , Dave Crooke , Paul McGarry , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: shared_buffers advice Organization: Hi-Media References: <4B9F3302.4020900@2ndquadrant.com> <8285.1268749832@sss.pgh.pa.us> <407d949e1003160753o6e5faa48rabaa42f7548029b7@mail.gmail.com> <20100316213054.GG3037@alvh.no-ip.org> <4BA01A4C.9090509@2ndquadrant.com> User-Mail-Address: dfontaine@hi-media.com Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:24:25 +0100 In-Reply-To: <4BA01A4C.9090509@2ndquadrant.com> (Greg Smith's message of "Tue, 16 Mar 2010 19:54:52 -0400") Message-ID: <871vfivsfa.fsf@hi-media-techno.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.472 tagged_above=-10 required=5 tests=AWL=0.127, BAYES_00=-2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 201003/219 X-Sequence-Number: 38044 Greg Smith writes: > I'm not sure how to make progress on similar ideas about > tuning closer to the filesystem level without having something automated > that takes over the actual benchmark running and data recording steps; it's > just way too time consuming to do those right now with every tool that's > available for PostgreSQL so far. That's the problem I work on, there are > easily a half dozen good ideas for improvements here floating around where > coding time is dwarfed by required performance validation time. I still think the best tool around currently for this kind of testing is tsung, but I've yet to have the time to put money where my mouth is, as they say. Still, I'd be happy to take some time a help you decide if it's the tool you want to base your performance testing suite on or not. http://tsung.erlang-projects.org/ Regards, -- dim