| From: | "Brandon Metcalf" <bmetcalf(at)nortel(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Vlad <marchenko(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, dbdpg-general(at)gborg(dot)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org, Sean Davis <sdavis2(at)mail(dot)nih(dot)gov> |
| Subject: | Re: [Dbdpg-general] benchmarking old Pg and DBD::Pg |
| Date: | 2005-04-08 20:53:44 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.58L.0504081549460.18466@cash.rhiamet.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-interfaces |
m == marchenko(at)gmail(dot)com writes:
m> could you let us know YOUR results with DBD::Pg 1.41 with and w/o
m> patch that I've posted earlier? I just did some surface-deep testing
m> here and here is what I've found:
m> DBD-1.40 - slow
m> DBD-1.41 - fast
m> DBD-1.41, patched - fast. I can't see difference between patched and
m> non patched.
Hm. What I'm seeing is that both DBD-Pg-1.40 and DBD-Pg-1.41 are
_much_ slower than the old Pg module. I see no difference between
1.40 and 1.41.
In order to test your patches for performance, I'll need to put
together a test environment that simulates the load in our production
environment. I'll let you know.
--
Brandon
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vlad | 2005-04-08 20:56:13 | Re: [Dbdpg-general] benchmarking old Pg and DBD::Pg |
| Previous Message | Vlad | 2005-04-08 20:47:04 | Re: [Dbdpg-general] benchmarking old Pg and DBD::Pg |