From: | Gary Doades <gpd(at)gpdnet(dot)co(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Strange Create Index behaviour |
Date: | 2006-02-15 21:34:11 |
Message-ID: | 43F39E53.1020009@gpdnet.co.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Tom Lane wrote:
> I tried forcing PG to use src/port/qsort.c on the Fedora machine,
> and lo and behold:
> new Fedora 4 machine: shortest 434 msec, longest 8530 msec
>
> So it sure looks like this script does expose a problem on BSD-derived
> qsorts. Curiously, the case that's much the worst for me is the third
> in the script, while the shortest time is the first case, which was slow
> for Gary. So I'd venture that the *BSD code has been tweaked somewhere
> along the way, in a manner that moves the problem around without really
> fixing it. (Anyone want to compare the actual FreeBSD source to what
> we have?)
>
If I run the script again, it is not always the first case that is slow,
it varies from run to run, which is why I repeated it quite a few times
for the test.
Interestingly, if I don't delete the table after a run, but just drop
and re-create the index repeatedly it stays a pretty consistent time,
either repeatedly good or repeatedly bad!
Regards,
Gary.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gary Doades | 2006-02-15 21:47:46 | Re: Strange Create Index behaviour |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-02-15 21:27:54 | Re: Strange Create Index behaviour |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-02-15 21:36:51 | Re: Postgres slower than MS ACCESS |
Previous Message | Jay Greenfield | 2006-02-15 21:29:51 | Re: Postgres slower than MS ACCESS |