Re: pgbench Comparison of 7.4.7 to 8.0.2

From: Steve Poe <spoe(at)sfnet(dot)cc>
To: "Thomas F(dot)O'Connell" <tfo(at)sitening(dot)com>
Cc: PgSQL - Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pgbench Comparison of 7.4.7 to 8.0.2
Date: 2005-04-26 17:49:46
Message-ID: 426E7F3A.8000500@sfnet.cc
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Tom,

Honestly, you've got me. It was either comment from Tom Lane or Josh
that the os is caching the results (I may not be using the right terms
here), so I thought it the database is dropped and recreated, I would
see less of a skew (or variation) in the results. Someone which to comment?

Steve Poe

Thomas F.O'Connell wrote:

> Considering the default vacuuming behavior, why would this be?
>
> -tfo
>
> --
> Thomas F. O'Connell
> Co-Founder, Information Architect
> Sitening, LLC
>
> Strategic Open Source: Open Your iâ„¢
>
> http://www.sitening.com/
> 110 30th Avenue North, Suite 6
> Nashville, TN 37203-6320
> 615-260-0005
>
> On Apr 25, 2005, at 12:18 PM, Steve Poe wrote:
>
>> Tom,
>>
>> Just a quick thought: after each run/sample of pgbench, I drop the
>> database and recreate it. When I don't my results become more skewed.
>>
>> Steve Poe
>
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Roger Hand 2005-04-26 19:52:53 Re: What needs to be done for real Partitioning?
Previous Message Mohan, Ross 2005-04-26 16:58:31 Re: Table Partitioning: Will it be supported in Future?