| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>, Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks |
| Date: | 2002-08-06 00:45:33 |
| Message-ID: | 3D4F1C2D.3040704@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Depends on what you consider skewed, I suppose. pgbench touches only a
> very small number of relations, and starts no new backends over the
> length of its run, thus everything gets cached and stays cached. At
> best I'd consider it an existence proof that some applications won't be
> hurt.
>
> Do you have another application you'd consider a more representative
> benchmark?
I'm not sure. Maybe OSDB? I'll see if I can get it running over the next
few days. Anyone else have other suggestions?
Joe
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amancio Hasty, Jr | 2002-08-06 00:46:43 | tsearch -- regular expressions? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-08-05 23:46:03 | Re: FUNC_MAX_ARGS benchmarks |