Re: Strange Create Index behaviour

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.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  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