Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: 8.0.X and the ARC patent

From: Mark Wong <markw(at)osdl(dot)org>
To: Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>,Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com,PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 8.0.X and the ARC patent
Date: 2005-03-02 15:47:40
Message-ID: 20050302154740.GB7798@osdl.org (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Yes, those parameters are based on a series of test results here:
	http://www.osdl.org/projects/dbt2dev/results/pgsql/rc4.html

Run 264 provided the best results, so I'm trying to continue with the
database parameters used there.

Mark

On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 10:41:57AM -0500, Dave Cramer wrote:
> I was just looking at the config parameters, and you have the shared 
> buffers set to 60k, and the effective cache set to 1k ????
> 
> Dave
> 
> Mark Wong wrote:
> 
> >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:
> >	http://www.osdl.org/projects/dbt2dev/results/dev4-010/313/
> >
> >I ran it for 3 hours, just in case, and the charts suggest it flattens
> >out after 2 hours.
> >
> >Mark

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: pgsqlDate: 2005-03-02 16:00:53
Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] snprintf causes regression
Previous:From: WesDate: 2005-03-02 15:46:46
Subject: Re: Vacuum time degrading

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group