On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 18:42:09 -0400 Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 03:16:04PM -0700, Mark Wong wrote: > > On Fri, 12 Aug 2005 17:49:41 -0400 > > Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Notice how the subindexes are wrong ... I think it should be 1:3 for > > > i_orders, no? Apparently indexes_scan.data has the same problem. > > > > Whoops! I think I fixed it for real now and the charts should be > > updated now. It was broken slightly more previously. > > Hmm, did you fix the 42 case only? The other one is broken too ... The other dev4-015 cases should be fixed too. > Also, it seems the "tran_lock.out" file captured wrong input -- I think > you mean "WHERE transactionid IS NULL" in the query instead of "WHERE > transaction IS NULL". Hmm, ok I can try that in a future test run. I'm not very familiar with this table, what's the difference between transaction and transactionid? > I wonder what the big down-spikes (?) at minutes ~45 and ~85 correspond > to. Are those checkpoints? The IO vmstat chart would indicate that, I > think. That's correct, those should be checkpoints. > Anyway, it's interesting to see the performance go up with autovacuum > on. I certainly didn't expect that in this kind of test. I think in Mary's case it was hurting, but she's running the workload dramatically different. I think she was planning to revisit that after we sort out what's going on with the grouped WAL writes. Mark ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly