| From: | Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jay Levitt <jay(dot)levitt(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, ants(dot)aasma(at)eesti(dot)ee |
| Subject: | Re: pg_test_timing tool for EXPLAIN ANALYZE overhead |
| Date: | 2012-02-22 18:45:47 |
| Message-ID: | CABRT9RBgE=x6W_d0VPrCdpTMu1hus+xVujf_Z1OpPeK0yPLU1g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 19:36, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> From the patch:
>
> Newer operating systems may check for the known TSC problems and
> switch to a slower, more stable clock source when they are seen.
> If your system supports TSC time but doesn't default to that, it
> may be disabled for a good reason.
Sorry, I was under the impression that the stability of Windows's
QueryPerformanceCounter() API is hardware-dependent, but I haven't
coded under Windows for a long time -- maybe it's improved in recent
versions.
Regards,
Marti
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2012-02-22 18:57:12 | Re: VACUUM ANALYZE is faster than ANALYZE? |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2012-02-22 18:36:38 | Re: VACUUM ANALYZE is faster than ANALYZE? |