| From: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Streaming read-ready sequential scan code |
| Date: | 2024-08-31 05:38:33 |
| Message-ID: | CA+hUKG+4nJHGau4H9yDjJ8XETqXOxkU3qNumgJkaPsyV9aV2KA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Aug 30, 2024 at 1:00 AM Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I looked at two perf profiles of such out-of-sync processes and found no
> extra calls or whatsoever in the slow one, it just has the number of perf
> samples increased proportionally. It made me suspect CPU frequency
> scaling... Indeed, with the "performance" governor set and the boost mode
> disabled, I'm now seeing much more stable numbers (I do this tuning before
> running performance tests, but I had forgotten about that when I ran that
> your test, my bad).
Aha, mystery solved.
I have pushed the fix. Thanks!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jelte Fennema-Nio | 2024-08-31 07:08:51 | Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Add non-blocking version of PQcancel |
| Previous Message | Alexander Lakhin | 2024-08-31 04:04:04 | Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Add non-blocking version of PQcancel |