| From: | "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: PCTFree Results |
| Date: | 2005-09-23 05:18:50 |
| Message-ID: | 20050923051850.GC7630@pervasive.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 10:05:57PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> With respect to the original point, I'm pretty nervous about either
> accepting or rejecting a performance-oriented patch on the strength
> of a single test case. This report certainly doesn't favor the PCTFREE
> patch, but it probably shouldn't kill it either. Anyone want to try it
> on some other test cases?
I *think* that a better test would be a table that is seeing a lot of
'update churn', or one that's seeing a lot of insert and delete activity
spread randomly around. It's very possible that dbt2 doesn't put enough
activity on each page to make any real difference, especially if the old
behaviour was to leave 10% free by default.
But it's been quite some time since the patch was discussed and I don't
remember specifics. Hopefully the author will speak up.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com
Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117
vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paesold | 2005-09-23 05:57:34 | Re: What has happened to pgxs? |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2005-09-23 05:04:50 | Re: Gerbil build farm failure |