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

Re: [HACKERS] Re: v7.1b4 bad performance

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: "Schmidt, Peter" <peter(dot)schmidt(at)prismedia(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: v7.1b4 bad performance
Date: 2001-02-19 23:40:45
Message-ID: 5401.982626045@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-adminpgsql-hackers
Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> I've been suspicious if pgbench is an (unique)
> appropiriate test case for evaluaing commit_delay.

Of course it isn't.  Never trust only one benchmark.

I've asked the Great Bridge folks to run their TPC-C benchmark with both
zero and small nonzero commit_delay.  It will be a couple of days before
we have the results, however.  Can anyone else offer any comparisons
based on other multiuser benchmarks?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Hiroshi InoueDate: 2001-02-20 00:51:12
Subject: Re: Performance-improvement idea: shortcircuit unique-indexchecks
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-02-19 23:36:03
Subject: Ordering problem with --with-includes

pgsql-admin by date

Next:From: Hiroshi InoueDate: 2001-02-20 10:45:25
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: v7.1b4 bad performance
Previous:From: Hiroshi InoueDate: 2001-02-19 23:28:47
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: v7.1b4 bad performance

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