From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Ron Peacetree <rjpeace(at)earthlink(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort? |
Date: | 2005-10-04 14:06:24 |
Message-ID: | 7788.1128434784@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org> writes:
> A quick binary search puts the cutoff between 1200 and 1300. Given
> version variation I picked a nice round number, 1500.
> Ugh, that's for -O2, for -O3 and above it needs to be 4100 to work.
> Maybe we should go for 5000 or so.
> I'm using: gcc (GCC) 3.3.5 (Debian 1:3.3.5-13)
I don't know what the units of this number are, but it's apparently far
too gcc-version-dependent to consider putting into our build scripts.
Using gcc version 4.0.1 20050727 (current Fedora Core 4 compiler) on
i386, and compiling tuplesort.c as you did, I find:
-O2: warning goes away between 800 and 900
-O3: warning is always there (tried values up to 10000000)
(the latter behavior may indicate a bug, not sure).
What's even more interesting is that the warning does not appear in
either case if I omit -finline-limit --- so the default value is plenty.
At least on this particular compiler, the proposed switch would be
counterproductive.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-10-04 14:17:27 | Re: memory bug debugging |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-10-04 13:52:58 | Re: New pg_config behavior |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2005-10-04 14:30:42 | Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort? |
Previous Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2005-10-04 12:24:46 | Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort? |