Re: GiST index performance

From: Tom Lane
Subject: Re: GiST index performance
Date: ,
Msg-id: 2125.1244741649@sss.pgh.pa.us
(view: Whole thread, Raw)
In response to: Re: GiST index performance  (Matthew Wakeling)
List: pgsql-performance

Tree view

GiST index performance  (Matthew Wakeling, )
 Re: GiST index performance  (Robert Haas, )
  Re: GiST index performance  (Matthew Wakeling, )
   Re: GiST index performance  (Tom Lane, )
    Re: GiST index performance  (Matthew Wakeling, )
     Re: GiST index performance  (Tom Lane, )
      Re: GiST index performance  (Matthew Wakeling, )
       Re: GiST index performance  (Tom Lane, )
        Re: GiST index performance  (Matthew Wakeling, )
         Re: GiST index performance  (Matthew Wakeling, )
          Re: GiST index performance  (Matthew Wakeling, )
           Re: GiST index performance  (Tom Lane, )
           Re: GiST index performance  (Adam Gundy, )
        Re: GiST index performance  (Heikki Linnakangas, )
      Re: GiST index performance  (Greg Smith, )
       Re: GiST index performance  (Robert Haas, )
 Re: GiST index performance  (Bruce Momjian, )
  Re: GiST index performance  (Robert Haas, )
  Re: GiST index performance  (Matthew Wakeling, )
   Re: GiST index performance  (Robert Haas, )
   Re: GiST index performance  (Yeb Havinga, )
    Re: GiST index performance  (Yeb Havinga, )
     Re: GiST index performance  (Yeb Havinga, )
      Re: GiST index performance  (Yeb Havinga, )
       Re: GiST index performance  (Yeb Havinga, )
        Re: GiST index performance  (Kenneth Marshall, )
         Re: GiST index performance  (Yeb Havinga, )
          Re: GiST index performance  (Matthew Wakeling, )
           Re: GiST index performance  (Yeb Havinga, )
            Re: GiST index performance  (Matthew Wakeling, )

Matthew Wakeling <> writes:
> The gistnext total doesn't seem to correspond to the amount I get by
> adding up all the individual lines in gistnest.

Hmm, hadn't you determined that some other stuff was being inlined into
gistnext?  I'm not really sure how opannotate displays such cases, but
this might be an artifact of that.

> However, yes it does seem like fmgr.c accounts for a large proportion of
> samples. Also, I still seem to be getting mcount, even after recompiling
> without --enable-profiling.

You must still have some -pg code in there someplace.  Maybe you didn't
recompile bioseg.so, or even psql?  Remember the libc counts you are
looking at are for system-wide usage of libc.

            regards, tom lane


pgsql-performance by date:

From: Erik Aronesty
Date:
Subject: Re: Best way to load test a postgresql server
From: Shaul Dar
Date:
Subject: Re: Postgres replication: dump/restore, PITR, Slony,...?