| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Overhead for stats_command_string et al, take 2 |
| Date: | 2006-06-23 16:31:51 |
| Message-ID: | 16445.1151080311@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> Average of 5 runs, for the first two cases, on the x86 machine that
> shows high overhead in gettimeofday.
> I used only 30000 SELECT 1 queries instead of 100k.
> 30000 SELECT 1;
> HEAD 8.1
> no overhead 21.9 23.1
> stats_command_string=1 22.4 36.6
> BEGIN; 30000 SELECT 1; COMMIT;
> HEAD 8.1
> no overhead 19.1 20.3
> stats_command_string=1 19.4 30.3
> It can be observed that HEAD in the no overhead case is actually faster
> than 8.1 on this machine.
That's more or less what I would have hoped to find, because we're
always finding ways to squeeze out bits of overhead here and there.
I wonder why your results are different from what I got on my older
machine? I'll have to break out oprofile again and try to see what's
happening there.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-06-23 16:48:00 | Re: Anyone still care about Cygwin? (was Re: [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-06-23 16:28:16 | Re: Planning without reason. |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2006-06-24 17:00:50 | Win32 VC++ build update patch |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-06-23 13:23:58 | Re: Overhead for stats_command_string et al, take 2 |