Re: [PATCHES] Try again: S_LOCK reduced contentionh]

From: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: dg(at)illustra(dot)com (David Gould)
Cc: hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org (PostgreSQL-development)
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Try again: S_LOCK reduced contentionh]
Date: 1998-05-08 17:31:15
Message-ID: 199805081731.NAA09818@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>
> >
> > OK, here is my argument for inlining tas().
>
> I am going out of town till Monday, so don't have time to give this
> the thoughtful response it deserves. I will get back to you on this as
> I am not quite convinced, but obviously in the face of this I need to
> explain my reasoning.

Sure. I just know that the reduction from 0.28 to 0.08 was performed
one 0.01 at a time. See the MemSet() macro. I am sure you will hate it
too, but it did reduce the number of calls to memset() and reduced
wallclock execution time as measured from the client.

--
Bruce Momjian | 830 Blythe Avenue
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
+ If your life is a hard drive, | (610) 353-9879(w)
+ Christ can be your backup. | (610) 853-3000(h)

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 1998-05-08 17:39:48 Re: [HACKERS] compile problem in libpq
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 1998-05-08 17:25:17 Re: [QUESTIONS] Using psql \f to change delimiter to space