| From: | Bill Moran <wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Ron Johnson <ron(dot)l(dot)johnson(at)cox(dot)net>, PgSQL Performance ML <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: The results of my PostgreSQL/filesystem performance |
| Date: | 2003-08-29 02:15:20 |
| Message-ID: | 3F4EB738.1060203@potentialtech.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
>>>As with all performance tests/benchmarks, there are probably dozens or
>>>more reasons why these results aren't as accurate or wonderful as they
>>>should be. Take them for what they are and hopefully everyone can
>>>learn a few things from them.
>>>
>>>Intelligent feedback is welcome.
>>>
>>>http://www.potentialtech.com/wmoran/postgresql.php
>>
>>I notice that the Linux FSs weren't tested with noatime. Any
>>reason?
>
> My friend, (a FreeBSD committer), was wondering what the results are if you
> turn off softupdates (to match Linux default installation) and use noatime.
Keep an eye on the page. The test results will be posted shortly after I
finish them.
Keep in mind, I'm more interested in figuring out what can be done to make
Postgres _faster_, so tests along that line are going to have a higher
priority than ones that specifically compare "apples to apples" or anything
like that.
> He also wonders how bug the default IO is?
Huh?
--
Bill Moran
Potential Technologies
http://www.potentialtech.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ken Geis | 2003-08-29 02:50:38 | Re: bad estimates / non-scanning aggregates |
| Previous Message | Vivek Khera | 2003-08-29 02:00:21 | Re: opinion on RAID choice |