Hi Merlin, We are moving up to a larger testbed, and are planning to use 9.2. But the results will not comparable to our 8.4 results due to differences in hardware. But that comparison is a useful one. I'll try for a quick test on the new hardware with 8.4 before moving to 9.2. Thanks, Reza > -----Original Message----- > From: Merlin Moncure [mailto:mmoncure@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 12:06 PM > To: Reza Taheri > Cc: Greg Smith; pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: The need for clustered indexes to boost TPC-V > performance > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Reza Taheri <rtaheri@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Just to be clear, we have a number of people from different companies > working on the kit. This is not a VMware project, it is a TPC project. But I > hear you regarding coming in from the cold and asking for a major db engine > feature. I know that I have caused a lot of rolling eyes. Believe me, I have > had the same (no, worse!) reaction from every one of the commercial > database companies in response to similar requests over the past 25 years. > > No rolling of eyes from me. Clustered indexes work and if your table access > mainly hits the table through that index you'll see enormous reductions in > i/o. Index only scans naturally are a related optimization in the same vein. > Denying that is just silly. BTW, putting postgres through a standard non > trivial benchmark suite over reasonable hardware, reporting results, > identifying bottlenecks, etc. > is incredibly useful. Please keep it up, and don't be afraid to ask for help > here. (one thing I'd love to see is side by side results comparing 8.4 to 9.1 to > 9.2). > > merlin -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
