Tom Lane wrote:
> Mark Kirkwood <markir@paradise.net.nz> writes:
>
>> Scale factor 10 produces an accounts table of about 130 Mb. Given that
>> most HW these days has at least 1G of ram, this probably means not much
>> retrieval IO is tested (only checkpoint and wal fsync). Do we want to
>> try 100 or even 200? (or recommend scale factor such that size > ram)?
>>
>
> That gets into a different set of questions, which is what we want the
> buildfarm turnaround time to be like. The faster members today produce
> a result within 10-15 minutes of pulling their CVS snaps, and I'd be
> seriously unhappy if that changed to an hour or three. Maybe we need to
> divorce compile/regression tests from performance tests?
>
>
>
We could have the system report build/regression results before going on
to do performance testing. I don't want to divorce them altogether if I
can help it, as it will make cleanup a lot messier.
cheers
andrew
