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

Re: pgbench Comparison of 7.4.7 to 8.0.2

From: Steve Poe <spoe(at)sfnet(dot)cc>
To: "Thomas F(dot)O'Connell" <tfo(at)sitening(dot)com>
Cc: PgSQL - Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pgbench Comparison of 7.4.7 to 8.0.2
Date: 2005-04-26 17:49:46
Message-ID: 426E7F3A.8000500@sfnet.cc (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
Tom,

Honestly, you've got me. It was either comment from Tom Lane or Josh 
that the os is caching the results (I may not be using the right terms 
here), so I thought it the database is dropped and recreated, I would 
see less of a skew (or variation) in the results. Someone which to comment?

Steve Poe


Thomas F.O'Connell wrote:

> Considering the default vacuuming behavior, why would this be?
>
> -tfo
>
> -- 
> Thomas F. O'Connell
> Co-Founder, Information Architect
> Sitening, LLC
>
> Strategic Open Source: Open Your iâ„¢
>
> http://www.sitening.com/
> 110 30th Avenue North, Suite 6
> Nashville, TN 37203-6320
> 615-260-0005
>
> On Apr 25, 2005, at 12:18 PM, Steve Poe wrote:
>
>> Tom,
>>
>> Just a quick thought: after each run/sample of pgbench, I drop the 
>> database and recreate it. When I don't my results become more skewed.
>>
>> Steve Poe
>
>


In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Roger HandDate: 2005-04-26 19:52:53
Subject: Re: What needs to be done for real Partitioning?
Previous:From: Mohan, RossDate: 2005-04-26 16:58:31
Subject: Re: Table Partitioning: Will it be supported in Future?

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