From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Armando <armando(dot)miraglia(at)stud-inf(dot)unibz(dot)it> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: c-function variants running time |
Date: | 2012-05-07 19:59:02 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmob-Wwwt+5g1SWdgYuToSPMO4F1LLHvkr4jFamuWfJqrAw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Armando
<armando(dot)miraglia(at)stud-inf(dot)unibz(dot)it> wrote:
> Hi everybody.
>
> First of all I have to thank you for your wonderful job! PostgreSQL rocks!
>
> I am writing you because I am interested in understanding some specifics related
> to PostgreSQL internals. More precisely, I am investigating the running time
> of the different function implementation approaches, which is part of my BSc
> thesis.
I would suggest that you run perf or oprofile to figure out where the
time is being spent.
It's a bit hard to tell what these functions are intended to do. It's
not obvious that you're doing anything that couldn't be done using
straight SQL.
How fast do you need this to run?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-05-08 02:16:33 | CLOG background writing |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-05-07 19:22:14 | Re: Latch for the WAL writer - further reducing idle wake-ups. |