Tom Lane wrote:
> Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> > At 00:42 25/02/01 -0800, Nathan Myers wrote:
> >> The only really bad performers were (0), (10k,1), (100k,20). The best
> >> were (30k,1) and (30k,10), although (30k,5) also did well except at 40.
> >> Why would 30k be a magic delay, regardless of siblings? What happened
> >> at 40?
> > I had assumed that 40 was one of the glitches - it would be good if Tom (or
> > someone else) could rerun the suite, to see if we see the same dip.
> Yes, I assumed the same. I posted the script; could someone else make
> the same run? We really need more than one test case ;-)
I could find the sciript but seem to have missed your change
about commit_siblings. Where could I get it ?
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Justin Clift||Date: 2001-02-26 00:18:37|
|Subject: Re: beta5 packages ...|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2001-02-25 21:58:04|
|Subject: Re: Re: offset and limit in update and subselect |