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

Re: 8.0.X and the ARC patent

From: Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>
To: Mark Wong <markw(at)osdl(dot)org>
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 16:04:21
Message-ID: 4225E405.2060605@fastcrypt.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
OK. I doubt that it impacts the results of the particular test, but it 
is non-intuitive (in my mind at least)
Did you change anything else between 263 and 264? From the table it 
appears that you are changing vm parameters
as well as database configuration parameters between runs ?

Dave

Mark Wong wrote:

>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
>>>      
>>>
>
>
>  
>

-- 
Dave Cramer
http://www.postgresintl.com
519 939 0336
ICQ#14675561


In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andreas PflugDate: 2005-03-02 17:35:45
Subject: Re: logging as inserts
Previous:From: pgsqlDate: 2005-03-02 16:00:53
Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] snprintf causes regression

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