X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05F41538AC for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 14:50:14 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 67373-04 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 17:50:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.tecarta.com (66.238.115.135.ptr.us.xo.net [66.238.115.135]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E1A8536BC for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 14:50:03 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail pickup service by mail.tecarta.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:53:09 -0700 Received: from mail.tecarta.com ([192.168.160.2]) by mail.tecarta.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:53:05 -0700 Received: from barracuda.tecarta.com ([192.168.160.200]) by mail.tecarta.com (SAVSMTP 3.1.0.29) with SMTP id M2005042610530431116 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:53:04 -0700 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1114537799-23911-23-0 X-Barracuda-URL: http://192.168.160.200:8000/cgi-bin/mark.cgi Received: from mail2 (mail2.hq.corp [192.168.160.6]) by barracuda.tecarta.com (Spam Firewall) with SMTP id 3C2912012BA1 for ; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:49:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.13] ([63.206.203.145]) by mail.tecarta.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:53:02 -0700 Message-ID: <426E7F3A.8000500@sfnet.cc> Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:49:46 -0700 From: Steve Poe User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041228) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Thomas F.O'Connell" Cc: PgSQL - Performance X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: [PERFORM] pgbench Comparison of 7.4.7 to 8.0.2 Subject: Re: pgbench Comparison of 7.4.7 to 8.0.2 References: <2784476415a96bb0912ebca41edb3d84@sitening.com> <6865.1113600214@sss.pgh.pa.us> <426C9508.8030902@sfnet.cc> <02c5560a910870da3637b6ff791e3a80@sitening.com> <426D265F.9080902@sfnet.cc> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed X-OriginalArrivalTime: 26 Apr 2005 17:53:02.0788 (UTC) FILETIME=[CAC59040:01C54A88] X-Virus-Scanned: by Barracuda Spam Firewall at tecarta.com X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=4.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=7.0 tests=BAYES_50 X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.02, rules version 3.0.571 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.00 BAYES_50 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60% [score: 0.5000] Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.182 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200504/702 X-Sequence-Number: 12099 Tom, Honestly, you've got me. It was either comment from Tom Lane or Josh=20 that the os is caching the results (I may not be using the right terms=20 here), so I thought it the database is dropped and recreated, I would=20 see less of a skew (or variation) in the results. Someone which to commen= t? Steve Poe Thomas F.O'Connell wrote: > Considering the default vacuuming behavior, why would this be? > > -tfo > > --=20 > Thomas F. O'Connell > Co-Founder, Information Architect > Sitening, LLC > > Strategic Open Source: Open Your i=E2=84=A2 > > http://www.sitening.com/ > 110 30th Avenue North, Suite 6 > Nashville, TN 37203-6320 > 615-260-0005 > > On Apr 25, 2005, at 12:18 PM, Steve Poe wrote: > >> Tom, >> >> Just a quick thought: after each run/sample of pgbench, I drop the=20 >> database and recreate it. When I don't my results become more skewed. >> >> Steve Poe > >