Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Postgres Benchmark Results

From: PFC <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com>
To: Chris <dmagick(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Postgres Benchmark Results
Date: 2007-05-28 06:41:51
Message-ID: op.ts0x71w7cigqcu@apollo13 (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
On Mon, 28 May 2007 05:53:16 +0200, Chris <dmagick(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

>>     I am re-running it with other tuning, notably cost-based vacuum  
>> delay and less frequent checkpoints, and it is a *lot* smoother.
>>     These take a full night to run, so I'll post more results when I  
>> have usefull stuff to show.
>>     This has proven to be a very interesting trip to benchmarkland...
> [ rather late in my reply but I had to ]
> Are you tuning mysql in a similar fashion ?

	Well, the tuning knobs are different, there are no check points or  
vacuum... but yes I tried to tune MySQL too, but the hardest part was  
simply making it work without deadlocking continuously.

In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Dave CramerDate: 2007-05-28 12:45:38
Subject: PITR performance costs
Previous:From: ChrisDate: 2007-05-28 03:53:16
Subject: Re: Postgres Benchmark Results

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group