Re: [GENERAL] Re : Solaris Performance - Profiling (Solved)

From: mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>
To: Doug McNaught <doug(at)wireboard(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Mark kirkwood <markir(at)slingshot(dot)co(dot)nz>, PostgreSQL Hackers Mailing List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Re : Solaris Performance - Profiling (Solved)
Date: 2002-04-03 15:57:08
Message-ID: 3CAB2654.D66CC887@mohawksoft.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

Doug McNaught wrote:
>
> mlw <markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> writes:
>
> > I noticed poor performance on Solaris, does one see this problem
> > when compiling PostgreSQL with gcc on solaris?
>
> Since it's libc that's the culprit, I would imagine so.

Thanks, that explains what I have seen.
>
> > As a suggestion, why not find the *best* version of qsort available,
> > anywhere, and always use that version on all platforms?
>
> Because qsort() is *supposed* to be optimized by the vendor for their
> platform, perhaps even written in assembler. It makes sense to trust
> the vendor except when their implementation is provably pessimized.

Perhaps *supposed* to be optimized, but, in reality, are they? Is it a
realistic expectation?

qsort() is a great sort for very random data, when data is mostly in the
correct order, it is very bad. Perhaps replacing it with an alternate sort
would improve performance in general.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Steve Lane 2002-04-03 16:10:08 Postgres/PHP, Apache child processes dying
Previous Message Doug McNaught 2002-04-03 15:49:28 Re: [GENERAL] Re : Solaris Performance - Profiling (Solved)

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message mlw 2002-04-03 16:11:28 Re: Suggestions please: names for function cachability
Previous Message Tom Lane 2002-04-03 15:52:41 Re: command.c breakup