Re: Great Bridge benchmark results for Postgres, 4 others
От | Andrew Snow |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Great Bridge benchmark results for Postgres, 4 others |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.BSF.4.21.0008151330190.2088-100000@giskard.fl.net.au обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Great Bridge benchmark results for Postgres, 4 others (Ned Lilly <ned@greatbridge.com>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
On Mon, 14 Aug 2000, Ned Lilly wrote: > Bryan, see my earlier post re: ODBC... will try and answer your other questions > here... > > > 2) Postgres has the 'vacuum' process which is typically run nightly which if > > not accounted for in the benchmark would give Postgres an artificial edge. > > I don't know how you would account for it but in fairness I think it should > > be acknowledged. Do the other big databases have similar maintenance > > issues? > > Don't know how this would affect the results directly. The benchmark app builds > the database clean each time, and takes about 18 hours to run for the full 100 > users (for each product). So each database created was coming in with a clean > slate, with no issues of unclaimed space or what have you... Does a vacuum analyze not get run at all? Could this affect performance or is it that not relevant in these benchmarks? Regards, Andrew
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: