On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 16:14, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 09:54:04AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 02:23, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 01:35:05AM +0200, Marko Kreen wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 05:59:06PM -0500, Tom Lane
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 08:23:10PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 01:35:05AM +0200, Marko Kreen wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 05:59:06PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Bruce Momjian writes:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 08:28:03PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > >> +1, I w
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 09:54:04AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 02:23, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 01:35:05AM +0200, Marko Kreen wrote:
> >> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 05:59:06PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> >> > > On Mon, Feb
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 02:23, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 01:35:05AM +0200, Marko Kreen wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 05:59:06PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> > Bruce Momjian writes:
>> > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 08:28:03PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> > >> +1, I was about to su
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 01:35:05AM +0200, Marko Kreen wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 05:59:06PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 08:28:03PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> +1, I was about to suggest the same thing. Running any of these tests
> > >> fo
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 05:59:06PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 08:28:03PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> +1, I was about to suggest the same thing. Running any of these tests
> >> for a fixed number of iterations will result in drastic degradation of
>
Bruce Momjian writes:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 08:28:03PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> +1, I was about to suggest the same thing. Running any of these tests
>> for a fixed number of iterations will result in drastic degradation of
>> accuracy as soon as the machine's behavior changes noticeably fro
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 09:54:06PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 08:28:03PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Robert Haas writes:
> > > Instead of or in addition to a fixed number operations per test, maybe
> > > we should cut off each test after a certain amount of wall-clock tim
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 08:28:03PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
> > Instead of or in addition to a fixed number operations per test, maybe
> > we should cut off each test after a certain amount of wall-clock time,
> > like 15 seconds.
>
> +1, I was about to suggest the same thing.
Robert Haas writes:
> Instead of or in addition to a fixed number operations per test, maybe
> we should cut off each test after a certain amount of wall-clock time,
> like 15 seconds.
+1, I was about to suggest the same thing. Running any of these tests
for a fixed number of iterations will res
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I have heard complaints that /contrib/pg_test_fsync is too slow. I
> thought it was impossible to speed up pg_test_fsync without reducing its
> accuracy.
>
> However, now that I some consumer-grade SATA 2 drives, I noticed that
> the slownes
I have heard complaints that /contrib/pg_test_fsync is too slow. I
thought it was impossible to speed up pg_test_fsync without reducing its
accuracy.
However, now that I some consumer-grade SATA 2 drives, I noticed that
the slowness is really in the open_sync test:
Compare open_sync with
12 matches
Mail list logo
