From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Mark Wong <markw(at)osdl(dot)org>, testperf-general(at)pgfoundry(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [Testperf-general] Re: 8.0beta5 results w/ dbt2 |
Date: | 2004-12-12 08:37:48 |
Message-ID: | 1102840668.4037.1536.camel@localhost.localdomain |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 2004-12-12 at 06:13, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mark Wong <markw(at)osdl(dot)org> writes:
> > I never vacuum during the test. Is it possible that all the updates
> > and inserts would affect this?
>
> That's bad; first because it possibly *is* hurting performance, and
> second because if it isn't, your results could legitimately be attacked
> as not representing the long-term-sustainable performance of Postgres.
> VACUUM is real, unavoidable overhead and so we have to account for it
> honestly.
Agreed.
There does seem to be a downward performance trend over the course of
the one-hour tests, fairly consistently across the tests I've seen. This
is from about ~4200 tpm peak to ~4000 tpm peak an hour later.
I suppose that could be the reason for some of the extended transaction
times - though I reported a clear peak in the txn freq/response time
graph (with delays of ~7s). If txn times were lengthening because of
vacuum, I wouldn't expect to see a peak, just a long tail on the
distribution (which we do see...)
--
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Fuhr | 2004-12-12 15:33:08 | Anonymous CVS not updating? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-12-12 06:27:46 | Re: [GENERAL] replacing a view: bug or feature? |