Qingqing Zhou wrote:
>
> "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote
> >
> > Hm? I don't see any improvement there:
> >
>
> I was referening this sentence, though I am not sure why that's the
> expectation:
> >
> > "Bruce Momjian" <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote
> > If the patch worked, the first and third times will be similar, and
> > the second time will be high.
I meant that the non-stats and the patched stats should be the similar,
and the stats without the patch (the second test) should be high.
> -- After patch --
>
> real 0m1.275s
> user 0m0.097s
> sys 0m0.160s
>
> real 0m4.063s
> user 0m0.663s
> sys 0m0.377s
>
> real 0m1.259s
> user 0m0.073s
> sys 0m0.160s
I assume the above is just running the same test three times, right?
-- Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
