Re: [HACKERS] [Testperf-general] pg_autovacuum w/ dbt2

[Matthew T. O'Connor]

Ok, but what I'm curious to do is see if you run the non-pg_autovacuum 
test for a "long time" (4 hours? more?) when does it get slower that 
running with pg_autovacuum.  And, can you demonstrate that running the 
tests with pg_autovacuum for a long time (say 4 hours) that the 
performance stays steady.

Also, I would very much like to see this test run with pg_autovacuum and 
it's vacuum delay settings enabled.

Matthew
ps: I know time is limited and these tests take a lot of time to run, so 
please take my requests with a grain of salt, all I'm saying is that I 
think these would be interesting results to see.

Mark Wong wrote:
Yeah, same hardware and database configuration.
No manual vacuum commands before.  The decline in performance has been
pretty consistent in all my previous tests and people have told me on
many occasions that the decline in performance was probably because I
was never using vacuum...
Mark
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 08:48:52AM -0500, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
 

I'm curious, the original run you posted with 3825 NOTPM is still 17% 
faster than the latest pg_autovacuum run which shows 3280 NOTPM.  Is 
this on the same hardware?  Also, did the original non-pg_autovacuum run 
any manual vacuum commands?  Also, does the non-pg_autovacuum run start 
slowing down after a while? The graphs look like there is a slight 
decline in performance as time goes on, what happens if you double the 
length of the test?

Thanks for doing the testing!
Matthew
   

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]