| From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Merlin Moncure <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance |
| Date: | 2005-10-22 17:58:30 |
| Message-ID: | 435A7DC6.9070606@dunslane.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>
>
>>I could make the whole dataset available, but tarred and zipped it's
>>about 300Mb. The reason I used this dataset was that I wanted to see a
>>test that took many seconds, and Merlin's did not - I wanted to see how
>>any performance gain scaled.
>>
>>
>
>Well, you tried to "scale" into a domain where the performance is going
>to be disk-I/O-limited, so I'm not sure it proves anything.
>
>
>
>
Good point. I took a 5% random extract from the lineitems table and saw
the expected improvement.
cheers
andrew
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-10-22 18:05:22 | Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-10-22 17:41:56 | Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance |