Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort?
Date
Msg-id 1128376292.8603.142.camel@localhost.localdomain
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort?  (Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>)
Responses Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort?  (Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, 2005-10-02 at 21:38 +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> Ok, I tried two optimisations:
> 

> 2. By specifying: -Winline -finline-limit-1500 (only on tuplesort.c).
> This causes inlineApplySortFunction() to be inlined, like the code
> obviously expects it to be.
> 
> default build (baseline)                    235 seconds
> -finline only                               217 seconds (7% better)
> comparetup_index_fastbyval4 only            221 seconds (6% better)
> comparetup_index_fastbyval4 and -finline    203 seconds (13.5% better)
> 
> This is indexing the integer sequence column on a 2.7 million row
> table. The times are as given by gprof and so exclude system call time.
> 
> Basically, I recommend adding "-Winline -finline-limit-1500" to the
> default build while we discuss other options.

I add -Winline but get no warnings. Why would I use -finline-limit-1500?

I'm interested, but uncertain as to what difference this makes. Surely
using -O3 works fine?

Best Regards, Simon Riggs



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Hannu Krosing
Date:
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort?
Next
From: "Luke Lonergan"
Date:
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort?