| From: | "Merlin Moncure" <merlin(dot)moncure(at)rcsonline(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu> |
| Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance tweak |
| Date: | 2005-10-21 19:30:50 |
| Message-ID: | 6EE64EF3AB31D5448D0007DD34EEB3417DD678@Herge.rcsinc.local |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > > I can't get the postgres to link with the patch...
> > > Am I missing something?
> > > Merlin
> > >
> > False alarm. I had to rerun configure which copies win32.h in
various
> > places, as Qingqing noted.
> >
> Not false alarm :) Only with DLLIMPORT can I link all the libraries.
> Will have performance #s up in a bit.
I have a couple of cpu-bound performance tests that I just ran with and
without the patch. Everything is ran with n=1 until volatile issue is
sorted out but so far I am not seeing any performance
improvement...believe me I would like nothing more than to report
otherwise. Also my tests maybe don't stress the signal code much. I
observed both the running time measured from the client and the weighted
average cpu load on the server.
Maybe it make a difference with high user load.
Merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Qingqing Zhou | 2005-10-21 20:03:04 | Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance tweak |
| Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2005-10-21 19:01:35 | Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance tweak |