On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 05:17:07PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mark Wong <markw(at)osdl(dot)org> writes:
> > On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 04:57:11PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Curious. The immediate question is "does it ever flatten out, and
> >> if so at what TPM rate compared to 8.0.1?" Could you run the same
> >> test for a longer duration?
> > The comparison was against 8.0.1, or did you mean 8.0.1 with the 2Q
> > patch? I can run a longer duration and see how it looks.
> My point was that unpatched 8.0.1 seems to have a pretty level TPM
> rate. If the patched version levels out at something not far below
> that, I'll be satisfied. If it continues to degrade then I won't be
> satisfied ... but the test stops short of telling what will happen.
> If you could run it for 2 hours then we'd probably know enough.
Ah, ok. I've reapplied the 2Q patch to CVS from 20050301:
I ran it for 3 hours, just in case, and the charts suggest it flattens
out after 2 hours.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2005-03-02 15:41:00|
|Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] snprintf causes regression tests|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2005-03-02 13:31:11|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] UTF8 or Unicode|