Thread: Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance tweak

> > > I can't get the postgres to link with the patch...
> > > Am I missing something?
> > > Merlin
> > >
> > False alarm.  I had to rerun configure which copies win32.h in
various
> > places, as Qingqing noted.
> >
> Not false alarm :)  Only with DLLIMPORT can I link all the libraries.
> Will have performance #s up in a bit.

I have a couple of cpu-bound performance tests that I just ran with and
without the patch.  Everything is ran with n=1 until volatile issue is
sorted out but so far I am not seeing any performance
improvement...believe me I would like nothing more than to report
otherwise.  Also my tests maybe don't stress the signal code much.  I
observed both the running time measured from the client and the weighted
average cpu load on the server.

Maybe it make a difference with high user load.

Merlin

"Merlin Moncure" <merlin.moncure@rcsonline.com> writes:
>> Will have performance #s up in a bit.

> I have a couple of cpu-bound performance tests that I just ran with and
> without the patch.  Everything is ran with n=1 until volatile issue is
> sorted out but so far I am not seeing any performance
> improvement...

Hm, what were the tests exactly?  Offhand I'd expect something like a
SELECT COUNT(*) on a large but not-too-wide table to show noticeable
improvement.
        regards, tom lane