On 2014-02-04 13:42:51 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Christian Kruse
> <christ...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> > Ok, benchmark for baseline+alignment patch is running.
> I see that you have enabled latency information. For this kind of
> thing I prefer to hack pgbench-tools to not collect this (i.e. to not
> pass the "-l" flag, "Per-Transaction Logging"). Just remove it and
> pgbench-tools rolls with it. It may well be that the overhead added is
> completely insignificant, but for something like this, where the
> latency information is unlikely to add any value, I prefer to not take
> the chance. This is a fairly minor point, however, especially since
> these are only 60 second runs where you're unlikely to accumulate
> enough transaction latency information to notice any effect.

Hm, I don't find that convincing. If you look at the results from the
last run the latency information is actually quite interesting.


Andres Freund

 Andres Freund                     http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to