Re: pgbench Comparison of 7.4.7 to 8.0.2

От: Steve Poe
Тема: Re: pgbench Comparison of 7.4.7 to 8.0.2
Дата: ,
Msg-id: 426E7F3A.8000500@sfnet.cc
(см: обсуждение, исходный текст)
Ответ на: Re: pgbench Comparison of 7.4.7 to 8.0.2  (Thomas F.O'Connell)
Список: pgsql-performance

Скрыть дерево обсуждения

pgbench Comparison of 7.4.7 to 8.0.2  (Thomas F.O'Connell, )
 Re: pgbench Comparison of 7.4.7 to 8.0.2  (Tom Lane, )
  Re: pgbench Comparison of 7.4.7 to 8.0.2  (Thomas F.O'Connell, )
   Re: pgbench Comparison of 7.4.7 to 8.0.2  (Steve Poe, )
    Re: pgbench Comparison of 7.4.7 to 8.0.2  (Thomas F.O'Connell, )
     Re: pgbench Comparison of 7.4.7 to 8.0.2  (Steve Poe, )
      Re: pgbench Comparison of 7.4.7 to 8.0.2  (Thomas F.O'Connell, )
       Re: pgbench Comparison of 7.4.7 to 8.0.2  (Steve Poe, )
 Re: pgbench Comparison of 7.4.7 to 8.0.2  (Steve Poe, )
  Re: pgbench Comparison of 7.4.7 to 8.0.2  (Thomas F.O'Connell, )

Tom,

Honestly, you've got me. It was either comment from Tom Lane or Josh
that the os is caching the results (I may not be using the right terms
here), so I thought it the database is dropped and recreated, I would
see less of a skew (or variation) in the results. Someone which to comment?

Steve Poe


Thomas F.O'Connell wrote:

> Considering the default vacuuming behavior, why would this be?
>
> -tfo
>
> --
> Thomas F. O'Connell
> Co-Founder, Information Architect
> Sitening, LLC
>
> Strategic Open Source: Open Your iâ„¢
>
> http://www.sitening.com/
> 110 30th Avenue North, Suite 6
> Nashville, TN 37203-6320
> 615-260-0005
>
> On Apr 25, 2005, at 12:18 PM, Steve Poe wrote:
>
>> Tom,
>>
>> Just a quick thought: after each run/sample of pgbench, I drop the
>> database and recreate it. When I don't my results become more skewed.
>>
>> Steve Poe
>
>



В списке pgsql-performance по дате сообщения:

От: Andrew Dunstan
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Bad n_distinct estimation; hacks suggested?
От: Mike Rylander
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Table Partitioning: Will it be supported in Future?