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 |
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:
> 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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2001-02-20 10:45:25 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: v7.1b4 bad performance |
Previous Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2001-02-19 23:28:47 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: v7.1b4 bad performance |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2001-02-20 00:51:12 | Re: Performance-improvement idea: shortcircuit unique-indexchecks |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-02-19 23:36:03 | Ordering problem with --with-includes |