Hi,
for whom it may concern:
http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/mosbench/
They tested with 8.3.9, i wonder what results 9.0 would give.
Best regards and keep up the good work
Hakan
> And your point is? The design center for the current setup is maybe 5
> or 10 partitions. We didn't intend it to be used for more partitions
> than you might have spindles to spread the data across.
Where did that come from? It certainly wasn't anywhere when the feature
was introduced. Simo
On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 11:34 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > And your point is? The design center for the current setup is maybe 5
> > or 10 partitions. We didn't intend it to be used for more partitions
> > than you might have spindles to spread the data across.
>
> Where did that come from?
Yea
Dan,
(btw, OpenSQL Confererence is going to be at MIT in 2 weeks. Think
anyone from the MOSBENCH team could attend?
http://www.opensqlcamp.org/Main_Page)
> The big takeaway for -hackers, I think, is that lock manager
> performance is going to be an issue for large multicore systems, and
> the un
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:44 AM, Hakan Kocaman wrote:
> Hi,
> for whom it may concern:
> http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/mosbench/
> They tested with 8.3.9, i wonder what results 9.0 would give.
> Best regards and keep up the good work
They mention that these tests were run on the older 8xxx series
opte
2010/10/4 Greg Smith :
> Craig Ringer wrote:
>>
>> If some kind of cache awareness was to be added, I'd be interested in
>> seeing a "hotness" measure that tracked how heavily a given relation/index
>> has been accessed and how much has been read from it recently. A sort of
>> age-scaled blocks-per
On 10/04/2010 04:22 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
I had a brain-storming session on this subject with a few of the hackers in the community in this area a
while back I haven't had a chance to do something with yet (it exists only as a pile of scribbled notes
so far). There's a couple of ways to collect
Josh Berkus writes:
>> And your point is? The design center for the current setup is maybe 5
>> or 10 partitions. We didn't intend it to be used for more partitions
>> than you might have spindles to spread the data across.
> Where did that come from? It certainly wasn't anywhere when the feat
