Hi!
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
Tom> Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org> forwards:
>> The problem was that when we run the benchmark with the --fast option,
>> which basicly does a vacuum() between after each batch of updates,
>> postmaster started to fill up disk with log files during one of the
>> vacuum() runs and didn't stop until the disk was full.
Tom> See
Tom> http://www.ca.postgresql.org/mhonarc/pgsql-patches/2001-06/msg00061.html
Tom> regards, tom lane
Thanks!
I will look at this as soon as I am back home from my vacation and
then do a new benchmark run and update the benchmark page.
Regards,
Monty
PS: If anyone has any ideas of things that we have missed in our
current benchmark pages, please email them to Anna so that she can
add these to the next generation of the benchmark suite.
Some things that I know we have missed in the single user
benchmark are:
- Sub select (all different forms of sub select, with a comparison
to normal selects for those select that can be
changed to normal selects)
- Foreign keys (which should contain a comparison with multi-table-delete)
- Transactions
- Rollback
With comparison I mean that there should be at least one test that
makes it easy for the user to see which construct is better for
this database.
