| 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 17:15:03 |
| Message-ID: | 25499.982602903@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers |
Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> In your test cases I always see "where bid = 1" at "update branches"
> i.e.
> update branches set bbalance = bbalance + ... where bid = 1
> ISTM there's no multiple COMMIT in your senario-s due to
> their lock conflicts.
Hmm. It looks like using a 'scaling factor' larger than 1 is necessary
to spread out the updates of "branches". AFAIR, the people who reported
runs with scaling factors > 1 got pretty much the same results though.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2001-02-19 23:28:47 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: v7.1b4 bad performance |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-02-19 16:50:02 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: v7.1b4 bad performance |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-02-19 17:36:19 | Re: GET DIAGNOSTICS (was Re: Open 7.1 items) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-02-19 16:57:53 | Re: floating point representation |