On 9/21/07, Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Merlin Moncure wrote: > > pre hot: > > run 1: 3617.641 ms > > run 2: 5195.215 ms > > run 3: 6760.449 ms > > after vacuum: > > run 1: 4171.362 ms > > run 2: 5513.317 ms > > run 3: 6884.125 ms > > post hot: > > run 1: Time: 7286.292 ms > > run 2: Time: 7477.089 ms > > run 3: Time: 7701.229 ms > > > > those results aren't exactly terrible, and this case is highly artificial. > > Your runtimes seem to be increasing as you repeat the test. Did you > remove the "DROP TABLE" from the beginning? On my laptop, post hot takes > ~2x as long as pre hot, even when repeated, which matches the results of > your first runs.
correct. Well, my first round of results are so far not showing the big gains I saw with hot in some of the earlier patches...so far, it looks approximately to be a wash although with the reduced need to vacuum. i'll test some more when things settle down. merlin ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate