Re: system usage stats (Was: Re: Why Not MySQL? )

From: The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
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 05:51:20
Message-ID: Pine.BSF.4.21.0005040250090.92638-100000@thelab.hub.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 4 May 2000, Tom Lane wrote:

> 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 ...

I was hoping that Mitch would have spoken up by now about it, but an email
I saw from him stated that the v7.0 machine (development) wasn't as
powerful as the v6.5.3 machine (production) ... that might account for it,
I just don't know how much different the two machines are ...

Marc G. Fournier ICQ#7615664 IRC Nick: Scrappy
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org secondary: scrappy(at){freebsd|postgresql}.org

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2000-05-04 07:30:32 Re: pg_group_name_index corrupt?
Previous Message The Hermit Hacker 2000-05-04 05:49:14 pg_group_name_index corrupt?