Re: [PERFORM] Sun Donated a Sun Fire T2000 to the PostgreSQL
От | David Roussel |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PERFORM] Sun Donated a Sun Fire T2000 to the PostgreSQL |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 449A9533.1030103@diroussel.xsmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PERFORM] Sun Donated a Sun Fire T2000 to the PostgreSQL (Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing@tweakers.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PERFORM] Sun Donated a Sun Fire T2000 to the PostgreSQL
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Arjen van der Meijden wrote:
Sureky the 'perfect' line ought to be linear? If the performance was perfectly linear, then the 'pages generated' ought to be G times the number (virtual) processors, where G is the gradient of the graph. In such a case the graph will go through the origin (o,o), but you graph does not show this.
I'm a bit confused, what is the 'perfect' supposed to be?
Thanks
David
...
Here is a graph of our performance measured on PostgreSQL:
http://achelois.tweakers.net/~acm/pgsql-t2000/T2000-schaling-postgresql.png
The "perfect" line is based on the "Max" value for 1 core and then just multiplied by the amount of cores to have a linear reference. The "Bij 50" and the "perfect" line don't differ too much in color, but the top-one is the "perfect" line.
Sureky the 'perfect' line ought to be linear? If the performance was perfectly linear, then the 'pages generated' ought to be G times the number (virtual) processors, where G is the gradient of the graph. In such a case the graph will go through the origin (o,o), but you graph does not show this.
I'm a bit confused, what is the 'perfect' supposed to be?
Thanks
David
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: