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
>
>
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? |