Merlin Moncure wrote: > On 10/14/06, Chris Mair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >The interesting part is the graph that shows updates / sec real time > >vs. running total of updates: > >http://www.1006.org/misc/20061014_pgupdates_bench/results.png > > one small thing: the variances inside the trendline are caused by > using integer timestamps...each slanted line is one second. The blue > line has a very slight wobble which is the effects of the vacuum..its > very slight. Actually in this test it would probably be good to > vacuum extremely often, like every 100 records or so.
I was thinking what would happen if you used 8.2 for this test and had a process continuously vacuuming the table, i.e. start a new vacuum as soon as the previous one finished, with a reasonable vacuum_delay setting (not sure what would qualify as reasonable; probably needs its own set of tests to determine the sweet spot). -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
