-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:39:57 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> writes:
> > Yeah, that... is beyond my abilities. Well reading it is anyway. I
> > can provide any information people want though. Tom? Greg? Andrew?
> > Somebody? What information do you want from me to help you track
> > this down?
>
> The vmstat output you showed before said user CPU time was only around
> 12%, which seems to destroy Luke's thesis that data conversion time
> is the problem. IIRC we were speculating that data was being written
> in a pattern that required a lot of seeking thus ruining throughput,
> but we didn't have any hard evidence of that. Did you do the
> strace'ing I suggested?
Yes, I asked if you wanted counts or the whole output. You didn't
answer :). I provided the counts.
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-02/msg00359.php
I won't be able to run another test until this weekend :( but anything
I have is yours.
Joshua D. Drake
- --
The PostgreSQL Company since 1997: http://www.commandprompt.com/
PostgreSQL Community Conference: http://www.postgresqlconference.org/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL SPI Liaison | SPI Director | PostgreSQL political pundit
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHvwqLATb/zqfZUUQRAl8tAJ0VmS6ffaFBq1a/UUYZxX9F84vcFgCgkhgl
+UF5Zp59H/JIJa1/ZSKvuC4=
=xw/k
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
