Mike Mascari wrote:
>
> Timothy Dyck wrote:
> >
> > Hi everybody, I'm done my tests of PostgreSQL and Interbase.
> >
> > I concentrated on two tests, an OLTP Single Read Test, where we read a
> > single row out of a 200K row indexed table, and the OLTP Read Mix Test,
> > which is a mix of about 30 queries, about half single table selects and
> > the other half joins of various complexity (up to four way). For both of
> > these tests, InterBase was about 2x to 2.5x as fast as PostgreSQL. In
> > multiuser tests (up to 100 users), the situation was reversed, with
> > PostgreSQL close to 3 times faster at peak throughput (which was at 50
> > concurrent users). The reason why is that InterBase on Linux has a
> > process-per-connection architecture without a shared cache. As such, I had
> > to really limit cache sizes to allow 100 users to connect, and that really
> > hurt InterBase's performance.
> >
> > I ran both PostgreSQL and InterBase with syncs turned off, and used a
> > cache of 65536 4KB pages and 4000K of sort buffer.
> If you are referring to the -B option of the postmaster,
> each "buffer" is 8K in size. So, for example -B 256 would be
> 2 megs of buffers. How much RAM was on the test machine? -B
> 65536 is a 1/2 gig...
I should have read your post more carefully. You say you
used 65536 4KB pages, so I assume you built PostgreSQL with
a BLCKSZ of 4 instead of 8, running with 256M of in-memory
buffers...
Mike Mascari