Re: PostgreSQL publishes first real benchmark

Jignesh K. Shah wrote:
> Can you list others that seemed out of place?

well to me the ones that look most questionable are:

work_mem=100MB - so this benchmark is really low concurrency(which does
not fit with max_connections=1000) and with trivial queries ?

enable_seqscan = off - why ?

effective_cache_size = 40GB - on a box with 16GB this seems wrong
especially since there are some indications out there that suggest that
while overestimating effective_cache_size was not a problem in versions
<8.2 it might not be so in 8.2 and up

wal_buffers = 2300 - there have been some numbers reported that going
over the default of 8 helps but it is generally considered that going
beyond 500 or maybe 1000 does not help at all ...


and one more is that you claim you used "-fast -O4 -xtarget=ultraT1"
which is something we explicitly advise against in our own
FAQ(http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs.FAQ_Solaris.html):

"Do not use any flags that modify behavior of floating point operations
and errno processing (e.g.,-fast).  These flags could raise some
nonstandard PostgreSQL behavior for example in the date/time computing."



Stefan