чт, 24 янв. 2019 г. в 10:25, liviuslivius :
>
> Hi.
>
> I have thinked about oltp comparision, and i think that comparing e.g.
> classic vs superserver on RAM disc is wrong. Why? Because read from "disc" is
> as fast as read from cache.
This case eliminates disc problems and allow to highlight o
23.01.2019 17:50, Gabor Boros wrote:
Same script into 5 databases concurrently:
2.5 - 10:55
3.0 - 8:11
4.0 - 8:41
Same script with numbered(1..5) table names into one database concurrently:
2.5 - 10:51 - 336.72 MB
3.0 - 8:09 - 329.79 MB
4.0 - 8:45 - 329.79 MB
i.e. v3 finally becomes fas
Hi.
I have thinked about oltp comparision, and i think that comparing e.g. classic
vs superserver on RAM disc is wrong. Why? Because read from "disc" is as fast
as read from cache. The comparision can show some problems but results must be
analysed carefully.
Regards,Karol Bieniaszewski
nullFire
I got a request privately about the 2.5 SuperClassic numbers. The
numbers are (with DefaultDbCachePages = 1):
The original case:
3:03 - 65.56 MB
Same script into 5 databases concurrently:
7:21
Same script with numbered(1..5) table names into one database concurrently:
7:22 - 336
Pool of external connections
Key: CORE-5990
URL: http://tracker.firebirdsql.org/browse/CORE-5990
Project: Firebird Core
Issue Type: New Feature
Components: Engine
Reporter: Vlad Khorsun
To
2019. 01. 21. 17:41 keltezéssel, Dmitry Yemanov írta:
This is a single-threaded test, isn't it?
2.5 - 2:59 - 65.65 MB
3.0 - 3:27 - 68.95 MB
4.0 - 3:37 - 68.95 MB
The results are more or less expected in this case (it doesn't mean
they're desirable but this is a different story).
Same scrip
