Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7C5C64FD14 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 06:56:58 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 87880-09 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 06:56:56 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com [209.85.132.250]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 140E564FC32 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 06:56:55 -0400 (AST) Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id d14so611974and.28 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 02:56:55 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.65.44.11 with SMTP id w11mr4982729qbj.58.1229943414696; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 02:56:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from oxford.xeocode.com.enterprisedb.com (69-196-135-189.dsl.teksavvy.com [69.196.135.189]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p27sm11325437qbp.12.2008.12.22.02.56.52 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 22 Dec 2008 02:56:53 -0800 (PST) To: "Mark Wong" Cc: "pgsql-performance\@postgresql.org" , "Selena Deckelmann" , "Gabrielle Roth" Subject: Re: dbt-2 tuning results with postgresql-8.3.5 In-Reply-To: <70c01d1d0812220050kb1f755etea3ecada3f3b8631@mail.gmail.com> (Mark Wong's message of "Mon\, 22 Dec 2008 00\:50\:20 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) X-Draft-From: ("nnimap+imap.gmail.com:PG" 101805) References: <70c01d1d0812201654i5f55150ep619a6c7ff094470@mail.gmail.com> <87hc4yuxbl.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com> <552F108E-9732-4ED6-B45D-6C651C63565E@gmail.com> <87d4fkvgtj.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com> <70c01d1d0812220050kb1f755etea3ecada3f3b8631@mail.gmail.com> From: Gregory Stark Organization: EnterpriseDB Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 10:56:50 +0000 Message-ID: <871vw0v5ot.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200812/184 X-Sequence-Number: 32220 "Mark Wong" writes: > Thanks for the input. In a more constructive vein: 1) autovacuum doesn't seem to be properly tracked. It looks like you're just tracking the autovacuum process and not the actual vacuum subprocesses which it spawns. 2) The response time graphs would be more informative if you excluded the ramp-up portion of the test. As it is there are big spikes at the low end but it's not clear whether they're really part of the curve or due to ramp-up. This is especially visible in the stock-level graph where it throws off the whole y scale. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com Ask me about EnterpriseDB's On-Demand Production Tuning