| From: | "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, justin(at)postgresql(dot)org, josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com, merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Changing the default configuration |
| Date: | 2003-04-29 04:41:38 |
| Message-ID: | 1051591298.7047.11.camel@zeutrh9 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
On Tue, 2003-02-11 at 20:10, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
> Sigh. People always complain "pgbench does not reliably producing
> repeatable numbers" or something then say "that's because pgbench's
> transaction has too much contention on the branches table". So I added
> -N option to pgbench which makes pgbench not to do any UPDATE to
> the branches table. But still people continue to complian...
What exactly does the -N option do? I see no mention of it in the
README.pgbench, which might be part of reason people "continue to
complain".
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-04-30 15:24:59 | ObjectWeb |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2003-04-25 23:11:39 | Re: Tech Docs and Consultants |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2003-04-29 06:19:06 | Searching for symbols with tsearch |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-04-29 03:06:22 | Re: How about an am_superuser GUC parameter (non-settable)? |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rajesh Kumar Mallah | 2003-04-29 07:01:09 | Is 292 inserts/sec acceptable performance ? |
| Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2003-04-28 22:54:39 | Re: How to get the optimizer to use an index with multiple |