From: | Mark kirkwood <markir(at)slingshot(dot)co(dot)nz> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Widenius <monty(at)mysql(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Re :MySQL Benchmark page - Problem with vacuum() in PostgreSQL |
Date: | 2001-08-17 23:55:51 |
Message-ID: | 01081811555100.01381@spikey.slithery.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Sounds eminently reasonable.... my misunderstanding sorry :-(
regards,
Mark
On Saturday 18 August 2001 00:15, Michael Widenius wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The idea is to run the same benchmarks two different ways:
>
> Normal: Run without any vacuum commands
> Fast: Run vacuum after each massive update/insert batch
>
> The reason for the 'fast' option is to get more accurate times for
> system that is mostly 'read' oriented.
>
> The test is more done like this:
>
> - Do a lot of inserts
> - vacuum
> - Do a lot of updates/deletes
> - vacuum
> - Do a lot of selects
> - drop tables
>
> Vacuum is never performed in a loop.
>
> In our tests we have noticed that we get a total speedup of 9 times
> when doing vacuum this way.
>
> Regards,
> Monty
>
> PS: The patch / new file we got from Tom Lane to fix the problem with
> vacuum didn't help. I will do a complete bug report about this
> later today.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Lamar Owen | 2001-08-17 23:59:07 | Re: Installing Postrgesql 7.1.2-3 |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-08-17 22:51:59 | Re: Installing Postrgesql 7.1.2-3 |