Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

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

Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance tweak

From
"Merlin Moncure"
Date:
> "Merlin Moncure" <merlin.moncure@rcsonline.com> writes:
> 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
I STAND CORRECTED!  My tests were high volume record by record
iterators, etc.  Read and drool, gentlemen.

Merlin

=============stock============

esp=# select count(*) from data1.line_file;count
--------321306
(1 row)

Time: 844.000 ms
esp=# select count(*) from data1.line_file;count
--------321306
(1 row)

Time: 843.000 ms
esp=# select count(*) from data1.line_file;count
--------321306
(1 row)

Time: 844.000 ms
esp=# \q
=============patched============
esp=# \timing
Timing is on.
esp=# select count(*) from data1.line_file;count
--------321306
(1 row)

Time: 453.000 ms
esp=# select count(*) from data1.line_file;count
--------321306
(1 row)

Time: 468.000 ms
esp=# select count(*) from data1.line_file;count
--------321306
(1 row)

Time: 469.000 ms

Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance tweak

From
Tom Lane
Date:
"Merlin Moncure" <merlin.moncure@rcsonline.com> writes:
> I STAND CORRECTED!  My tests were high volume record by record
> iterators, etc.  Read and drool, gentlemen.

Looks good to me ;-) ...

If I recall the bidding correctly, the original patch needs DLLIMPORT
qualifiers attached to both of the variables, plus volatile attached to
pg_signal_queue.  Do you want to send along the modified patch, or do
you think a non-Windows-hacker can get it right the first time?
        regards, tom lane

Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance

From
Qingqing Zhou
Date:

On Fri, 21 Oct 2005, Merlin Moncure wrote:

> > "Merlin Moncure" <merlin.moncure@rcsonline.com> writes:
> > 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
> I STAND CORRECTED!  My tests were high volume record by record
> iterators, etc.  Read and drool, gentlemen.
>

Great! Did you patch the "volatile" thing?

Regards,
Qingqing