| From: | "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "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 10:55:40 |
| Message-ID: | 6BCB9D8A16AC4241919521715F4D8BCE92E770@algol.sollentuna.se |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> And the patch that was applied gives the same result.
>
> What is more, I am not seeing the reported speedup - in fact
> I am seeing no speedup worth mentioning.
>
> This is on XP-Pro, with default postgres settings. The test
> sets were somewhat larger than thos Magnus used - basically
> TPC-H lineitems and orders tables (6m and 1.5m rows respectively).
First, that was Merlin and not me :-)
Second, it didn't really show any improvement for him either in his
normal test. But when he re-ran it with just the count(*) test it showed
improvement. Did you run a count(*) test or some other test?
//Magnus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Hallgren | 2005-10-22 11:49:16 | Lifecycle management |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2005-10-22 10:53:36 | Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance |