| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Mitch Vincent <mitch(at)huntsvilleal(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: system usage stats (Was: Re: Why Not MySQL? ) |
| Date: | 2000-05-04 05:47:32 |
| Message-ID: | 22741.957419252@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
> Now, Mitch's results for v7.0 showed something like:
> 0/12 filesystem blocks in/out
> You intepreted that as 12 reads from the file system ... 'out' I would
> have interpreted as writes to the file system, which made zero sense
> ... do we have our 'in/out's backwards here?
Good point. Writes from a SELECT are certainly possible --- the SELECT
could be writing tuple status-flag updates, if it was the first
transaction to verify commit status of tuples created by a prior
transaction. But that again raises the issue of whether we've got
a fair comparison. The 6.5 test apparently only saw already-marked-
committed tuples ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2000-05-04 05:49:14 | pg_group_name_index corrupt? |
| Previous Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2000-05-04 05:36:11 | Re: system usage stats (Was: Re: Why Not MySQL? ) |