This is a discussion on Re: [PATCHES] Win32 CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS() performance tweak within the pgsql Hackers forums, part of the PostgreSQL category; --> > > > I can't get the postgres to link with the patch... > > > Am I missing ...
| |||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| ||||
| > > > 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 > 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 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org |
| ||||
| "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 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|