Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It's not so much that I want to inflate the measurements, as that
>> leaving 10% of the CPU on the table reduces pgbench's usefulness as
>> a way of stress-testing the backend.
> ...
> In any case it seems like there w
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's not so much that I want to inflate the measurements, as that
> leaving 10% of the CPU on the table reduces pgbench's usefulness as
> a way of stress-testing the backend.
I suspect the difference is the same thing you theorised made the difference
before
Now that I've fixed the silly mistake in the fork-based version of
pgbench,
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2005-12/msg00017.php
I'm seeing it consistently outperform the CVS-tip version by about 5%.
I get about 700 tps versus 670 tps; meanwhile "top" reports that idle
CPU percentage d
