Mark Wong wrote:
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 10:13:52AM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
Mark,
All default parameters. Matthew also recommended using the
vacuum_delay setting so I was about to try that.
Interesting ... the default parameters are quite conservative, running only
when the table
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 10:13:52AM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Mark,
>
> > All default parameters. Matthew also recommended using the
> > vacuum_delay setting so I was about to try that.
>
> Interesting ... the default parameters are quite conservative, running only
> when the table has doubled
Mark,
> All default parameters. Matthew also recommended using the
> vacuum_delay setting so I was about to try that.
Interesting ... the default parameters are quite conservative, running only
when the table has doubled in new rows. So if those spikes are vacuums,
then the DBT2 test is upda
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 09:58:47AM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Mark,
>
> > 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
> >
Mark,
> 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...
Hmmm ... what autovacuum params are you using?
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 st
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
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 dow
I apologize for the significant delay, here's a link to results to a
test with 8.0rc3:
http://www.osdl.org/projects/dbt2dev/results/dev4-010/236/
These are the same parameters with as run 215, listed below with the
but with --enable-debug --enable-cassert. I also ran pg_autovacuum
with -d
