From: | Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing(at)tweakers(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | David Roussel <pgsql-performance(at)diroussel(dot)xsmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Sun Donated a Sun Fire T2000 to the PostgreSQL |
Date: | 2006-06-22 14:19:21 |
Message-ID: | 449AA6E9.9050804@tweakers.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On 22-6-2006 15:03, David Roussel wrote:
> Sureky the 'perfect' line ought to be linear? If the performance was
> perfectly linear, then the 'pages generated' ought to be G times the
> number (virtual) processors, where G is the gradient of the graph. In
> such a case the graph will go through the origin (o,o), but you graph
> does not show this.
>
> I'm a bit confused, what is the 'perfect' supposed to be?
First of all, this graph has no origin. Its a bit difficult to test with
less than one cpu.
Anyway, the line actually is linear and would've gone through the
origin, if there was one. What I did was take the level of the
'max'-line at 1 and then multiply it by 2, 4, 6 and 8. So if at 1 the
level would've been 22000, the 2 would be 44000 and the 8 176000.
Please do notice the distance between 1 and 2 on the x-axis is the same
as between 2 and 4, which makes the graph a bit harder to read.
Best regards,
Arjen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2006-06-22 14:20:28 | Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC |
Previous Message | Csaba Nagy | 2006-06-22 14:09:19 | Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-06-22 14:47:27 | Re: Regarding ERROR: fmgr_info: function 2720768: cache lookup failed |
Previous Message | Craig A. James | 2006-06-22 14:03:25 | Re: [HACKERS] Sun Donated a Sun Fire T2000 to the PostgreSQL |