
> > I agree that 30k looks like the magic delay, and probably 30/5 would be a
> > good conservative choice. But now I think about the choice of number, I
> > think it must vary with the speed of the machine and length of the
> > transactions; at 20tps, each TX is completing in around 50ms.

I think disk speed should probably be the main factor.
After the first run 30k/5 also seemed the best here, but running the test
again shows, that the results are only reproducible after a new initdb.
Anybody else see reproducible results without previous initdb ?

One thing I noticed is, that WAL_FILES needs to be at least 4, because
one run fills up to 3 logfiles, and we don't want to measure WAL formating.

Andreas

Tue, 27 Feb 2001 10:56:07 +0100
Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA@wien.spardat.at>
AW: CommitDelay performance improvement 