On 26 Aug 2003 at 14:57, Jacob Hanson wrote:
> This weekend I upgraded to 7.4b1 and ran my tests. There was
> significant improvements across the board. PostgreSQL's times went
> down some 25-50% for these things. And this is using a stock config (I
> know, I know, I'm going to fix it). (BTW, should changing config
> parameters show any improvements the tests I'm doing aren't causing it
> to swap? I know it's mandatory when I place it under load...)
It makes difference for the plan it chooses. Setting effective cache and shared
buffers right is a must. Shared buffers is a hit-n-miss game. You need to find
your own sweet spot but effective cache is pretty straight forward and should
be set properly at all times..
> Granted, these tests didn't accurately simulate a real-world load, but
> that won't be doable until the project is done. Anyway, I'm going to
> use PostgreSQL!
If postgresql works fastest for your own load, would you really care if mysql
wins performance bechmark over network RAID with one disk placed on moon?
Maybe the results aren't representative but they are far more valuable to you
than any other representative bechmarks..
Bye
Shridhar
--
Your job is being a professor and researcher: That's one hell of a good
excusefor some of the brain-damages of minix.(Linus Torvalds to Andrew
Tanenbaum)
