Sounds eminently reasonable.... my misunderstanding sorry :-(
regards,
Mark
On Saturday 18 August 2001 00:15, Michael Widenius wrote:
> Hi!
>
> The idea is to run the same benchmarks two different ways:
>
> Normal: Run without any vacuum commands
> Fast: Run vacuum after each massive update/insert batch
>
> The reason for the 'fast' option is to get more accurate times for
> system that is mostly 'read' oriented.
>
> The test is more done like this:
>
> - Do a lot of inserts
> - vacuum
> - Do a lot of updates/deletes
> - vacuum
> - Do a lot of selects
> - drop tables
>
> Vacuum is never performed in a loop.
>
> In our tests we have noticed that we get a total speedup of 9 times
> when doing vacuum this way.
>
> Regards,
> Monty
>
> PS: The patch / new file we got from Tom Lane to fix the problem with
> vacuum didn't help. I will do a complete bug report about this
> later today.
