| From: | Andrew Snow <als(at)fl(dot)net(dot)au> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Great Bridge benchmark results for Postgres, 4 others |
| Date: | 2000-08-15 03:32:03 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.21.0008151330190.2088-100000@giskard.fl.net.au |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Ned Lilly wrote:
> Bryan, see my earlier post re: ODBC... will try and answer your other questions
> here...
>
> > 2) Postgres has the 'vacuum' process which is typically run nightly which if
> > not accounted for in the benchmark would give Postgres an artificial edge.
> > I don't know how you would account for it but in fairness I think it should
> > be acknowledged. Do the other big databases have similar maintenance
> > issues?
>
> Don't know how this would affect the results directly. The benchmark app builds
> the database clean each time, and takes about 18 hours to run for the full 100
> users (for each product). So each database created was coming in with a clean
> slate, with no issues of unclaimed space or what have you...
Does a vacuum analyze not get run at all? Could this affect performance or
is it that not relevant in these benchmarks?
Regards,
Andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alex Pilosov | 2000-08-15 04:02:28 | TPC (was Great Bridge benchmark results for Postgres, 4 others) |
| Previous Message | The Hermit Hacker | 2000-08-15 03:27:37 | Re: Great Bridge benchmark results for Postgres, 4 others |