On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Interesting. You've spoken at length how this hardly ever happens and > so this can't have any performance effect. That was the reason for > kicking out my patch addressing clog history, wasn't it?
Uh, no, the reason for kicking out your clog history patch was that it caused throughput to drop by a factor of 3 on a pgbench test at scale factor 300. I assume you've got a bug there somewhere, or maybe there's some other effect that hasn't been quantified. > Why is this pgbench run accessing so much unhinted data that is > 1 > million transactions old? Do you believe those numbers? Looks weird. Seems pretty normal to me, for the reasons Greg Stark states. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
