This is a discussion on Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Help with tuning this query (with within the Pgsql Performance forums, part of the PostgreSQL category; --> > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us] > Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 4:57 PM > To: John ...
| |||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| ||||
| > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us] > Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 4:57 PM > To: John A Meinel > Cc: Dave Held; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; > pgsql-hackers-win32@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [PERFORM] Help with tuning > this query > (with > > John A Meinel <john@arbash-meinel.com> writes: > > Dave Held wrote: > >> There is always clock(). > > > My experience with clock() on win32 is that CLOCKS_PER_SEC > > was 1000, and it had a resolution of 55clocks / s. Which is why I suggested QueryPerformanceCounter for Win32. I only suggested clock() for *nix. > The other problem is it measures process CPU time, not elapsed time > which is probably more significant for our purposes. Actually, the bigger problem is that a quick test of clock() on Linux shows that it only has a maximum resolution of 10ms on my hardware. Looks like gettimeofday() is the best choice. > Which brings up a question: just what does QueryPerformanceCounter > measure? I think it measures raw CPU cycles, roughly, which seems like it would more or less correspond to wall time. __ David B. Held Software Engineer/Array Services Group 200 14th Ave. East, Sartell, MN 56377 320.534.3637 320.253.7800 800.752.8129 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|