On 3/2/07, Tatsuo Ishii [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just for curiosity, I would like to ask you why you need to modify
pgbench. pgbench can accept custom SQL scripts...
Oh yes, there was no real need to modify pgbench.
Thanks,
Pavan
--
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 22:35 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
Merlin Moncure wrote:
On 3/1/07, Pavan Deolasee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
seems pretty solid except for one possible problem...at one point when
I dropped then later added the index on 'abalance', I got
Pavan Deolasee wrote:
Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
accounts 157895 (initial size) 49284 (increase)
accounts_pkey 19709 (initial size) 19705 (increase)
Just to clarify, the relation size and increase is in number
of blocks.
The numbers are quite
Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
Just for curiosity, I would like to ask you why you need to modify
pgbench. pgbench can accept custom SQL scripts...
P.S. HOT seems to be one of the greatest enhancements since PostgreSQL
was born!
Yep, I share your enthusiasm.
--
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bruce Momjian escribió:
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 22:35 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
Merlin Moncure wrote:
On 3/1/07, Pavan Deolasee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
seems pretty solid except for one possible problem...at one point when
I dropped then later added
On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 18:37 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Bruce Momjian escribió:
Simon Riggs wrote:
CLUSTER does not need changes for HOT, as things stand currently, mainly
because its MVCC behaviour is broken.
That's oddly discouraging. :-)
Simon Riggs escribió:
On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 18:37 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Bruce Momjian escribió:
Simon Riggs wrote:
CLUSTER does not need changes for HOT, as things stand currently, mainly
because its MVCC behaviour is broken.
On 3/1/07, Pavan Deolasee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
accounts 157895 (initial size) 49284 (increase)
accounts_pkey 19709 (initial size) 19705 (increase)
Just to clarify, the relation size and increase is in number of blocks.
Thanks,
Pavan
--
EnterpriseDB
accounts 157895 (initial size) 49284 (increase)
accounts_pkey 19709 (initial size) 19705 (increase)
Just to clarify, the relation size and increase is in number
of blocks.
The numbers are quite impressive :-) Have you removed the selects on
accounts too ?
Seems
On 3/1/07, Pavan Deolasee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi All,
Here are some preliminary numbers with the HOT 4.0 patch that I sent
out earlier today. These are only indicative results and should not be
used to judge the performance of HOT in general. I have intentionally
used the setup favorable
Merlin Moncure wrote:
On 3/1/07, Pavan Deolasee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
seems pretty solid except for one possible problem...at one point when
I dropped then later added the index on 'abalance', I got spammed
'WARNING: found a HOT-updated tuple' from psql prompt.
Thats intentional. We
On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 22:35 +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
Merlin Moncure wrote:
On 3/1/07, Pavan Deolasee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
seems pretty solid except for one possible problem...at one point when
I dropped then later added the index on 'abalance', I got spammed
'WARNING:
Zeugswetter Andreas ADI SD wrote:
accounts 157895 (initial size) 49284 (increase)
accounts_pkey 19709 (initial size) 19705 (increase)
Just to clarify, the relation size and increase is in number
of blocks.
The numbers are quite impressive :-) Have you removed the
Just for curiosity, I would like to ask you why you need to modify
pgbench. pgbench can accept custom SQL scripts...
P.S. HOT seems to be one of the greatest enhancements since PostgreSQL
was born!
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
Hi All,
Here are some preliminary numbers with the HOT 4.0
14 matches
Mail list logo
