Re: 8.0.X and the ARC patent - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Mark Wong
Subject Re: 8.0.X and the ARC patent
Date
Msg-id 20050302152141.GA7798@osdl.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: 8.0.X and the ARC patent  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: 8.0.X and the ARC patent  (Dave Cramer <pg@fastcrypt.com>)
Re: 8.0.X and the ARC patent  (Michael Adler <adler@pobox.com>)
Re: 8.0.X and the ARC patent  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 05:17:07PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Mark Wong <markw@osdl.org> writes:
> > On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 04:57:11PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Curious.  The immediate question is "does it ever flatten out, and
> >> if so at what TPM rate compared to 8.0.1?"  Could you run the same
> >> test for a longer duration?
> 
> > The comparison was against 8.0.1, or did you mean 8.0.1 with the 2Q
> > patch?  I can run a longer duration and see how it looks.
> 
> My point was that unpatched 8.0.1 seems to have a pretty level TPM
> rate.  If the patched version levels out at something not far below
> that, I'll be satisfied.  If it continues to degrade then I won't be
> satisfied ... but the test stops short of telling what will happen.
> If you could run it for 2 hours then we'd probably know enough.

Ah, ok.  I've reapplied the 2Q patch to CVS from 20050301:http://www.osdl.org/projects/dbt2dev/results/dev4-010/313/

I ran it for 3 hours, just in case, and the charts suggest it flattens
out after 2 hours.

Mark


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: pgsql@mohawksoft.com
Date:
Subject: Re: snprintf causes regression tests to fail
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] snprintf causes regression tests