From: | Fredrik Estreen <estreen(at)algonet(dot)se> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, jwbaker(at)acm(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |
Date: | 2002-01-04 06:21:54 |
Message-ID: | 3C354A02.3060506@algonet.se |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-odbc |
Tom Lane wrote:
>Fredrik Estreen <estreen(at)algonet(dot)se> writes:
>
>>I could run benchmarks on 7.1 if that would be interesting.
>>
>
>Yes, if you have the time to run the same test conditions on 7.1, it
>would be good.
>
>Also, per recent discussions, it would probably be better to try to keep
>the total number of transactions the same for all runs (maybe about
>10000 transactions total, so -t would vary between 10000 and 200 as
>-c ranges from 1 to 50).
>
I'll test my original series on 7.1 and also test the constant number of
transactions this
weekend. A quick test with 20 transactions and 50 clients gave ca 25 tps
with the latest
patch, but I'm not sure that point is good, other loads etc.
Regards
Fredrik Estreen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-01-04 06:22:33 | Re: Is there any performance penalty using --with-ssl? |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-01-04 05:53:44 | RC1 time? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hannu Krosing | 2002-01-04 11:45:43 | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-01-04 05:02:29 | Re: LWLock contention: I think I understand the problem |