On 8/14/07, ITAGAKI Takahiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I ran some CPU intensive pgbench tests on HOT. Results are not
> > surprising, HOT makes practically no difference on the total transaction
> > rate, but reduces the need to vacuum:
> >
> >
Thanks for the testing,
ITAGAKI Takahiro wrote:
> I gathered oprofile logs. There were 4 HOT-related functions, that didn't
> appear in the unpatched test. But it is probably not so serious.
> - heap_page_prune 1.84%
> - PageRepairFragmentation 0.94%
> - pg_qsort 0.
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I ran some CPU intensive pgbench tests on HOT. Results are not
> surprising, HOT makes practically no difference on the total transaction
> rate, but reduces the need to vacuum:
>
> unpatched HOT
> tps 3680 3
On 8/8/07, Merlin Moncure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/7/07, Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I ran some CPU intensive pgbench tests on HOT. Results are not
> > surprising, HOT makes practically no difference on the total transaction
> > rate, but reduces the need to vacuum:
>
On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 20:27 +0100, Gregory Stark wrote:
> "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 13:16 +0100, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> >> I ran some CPU intensive pgbench tests on HOT. Results are not
> >> surprising, HOT makes practically no difference on the tot
On 8/7/07, Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I ran some CPU intensive pgbench tests on HOT. Results are not
> surprising, HOT makes practically no difference on the total transaction
> rate, but reduces the need to vacuum:
>
> unpatched HOT
> tps 3680
"Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 13:16 +0100, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
>> I ran some CPU intensive pgbench tests on HOT. Results are not
>> surprising, HOT makes practically no difference on the total transaction
>> rate, but reduces the need to vacuum:
>> ...
> N
On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 13:16 +0100, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> I ran some CPU intensive pgbench tests on HOT. Results are not
> surprising, HOT makes practically no difference on the total transaction
> rate, but reduces the need to vacuum:
>
> unpatched HOT
> tps
On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 15:40 +0100, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>unpatched HOT
> >> autovacuums116 43
> >> autoanalyzes 139 60
> >
> >> HOT greatly reduces the number o
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
HOT greatly reduces the number of vacuums needed. That's good, that's
where the gains in throughput in longer I/O bound runs comes from.
But surely failing to auto-analyze after a HOT update
> > unpatched HOT
> > autovacuums 116 43
> > autoanalyzes139 60
>
> > HOT greatly reduces the number of vacuums needed. That's
> good, that's
> > where the gains in throughput in longer I/O bound runs comes from.
>
> But surely failing to
Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> unpatched HOT
>> autovacuums 116 43
>> autoanalyzes 139 60
>
>> HOT greatly reduces the number of vacuums needed. That's good, that's
>> where the gains in throughput in longer I/O
Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> unpatched HOT
> autovacuums 116 43
> autoanalyzes 139 60
> HOT greatly reduces the number of vacuums needed. That's good, that's
> where the gains in throughput in longer I/O bound runs comes from.
I ran some CPU intensive pgbench tests on HOT. Results are not
surprising, HOT makes practically no difference on the total transaction
rate, but reduces the need to vacuum:
unpatched HOT
tps 36803790
WAL written(MB) 53864804
checkpoin
14 matches
Mail list logo