On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 02:23, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us 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 br...@momjian.us writes:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 08:28:03PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
+1,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 09:54:04AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 02:23, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us 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 br...@momjian.us
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 br...@momjian.us writes:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 08:28:03PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
+1, I
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 16:14, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 09:54:04AM +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 02:23, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 01:35:05AM +0200, Marko Kreen wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at
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 robertmh...@gmail.com 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
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us 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
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 05:59:06PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us 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
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 br...@momjian.us 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
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
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us 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
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com 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
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 08:28:03PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com 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
12 matches
Mail list logo