On 2014-02-04 13:42:51 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Christian Kruse > <christ...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > Ok, benchmark for baseline+alignment patch is running. > > I see that you have enabled latency information. For this kind of > thing I prefer to hack pgbench-tools to not collect this (i.e. to not > pass the "-l" flag, "Per-Transaction Logging"). Just remove it and > pgbench-tools rolls with it. It may well be that the overhead added is > completely insignificant, but for something like this, where the > latency information is unlikely to add any value, I prefer to not take > the chance. This is a fairly minor point, however, especially since > these are only 60 second runs where you're unlikely to accumulate > enough transaction latency information to notice any effect.
Hm, I don't find that convincing. If you look at the results from the last run the latency information is actually quite interesting. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
