| From: | "Dickson S(dot) Guedes" <listas(at)guedesoft(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Better LWLocks with compare-and-swap (9.4) |
| Date: | 2013-05-20 12:51:12 |
| Message-ID: | 1369054272.12371.11.camel@dba01 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Em Seg, 2013-05-20 às 14:35 +0200, Andres Freund escreveu:
> On 2013-05-20 09:31:15 -0300, Dickson S. Guedes wrote:
> > Hum, I was supposing that I was doing something wrong but I'm getting
> > the same result as before even using your test case and my results is
> > still different from yours:
> >
> >
> > + 71,27% postgres postgres [.] AtEOXact_Buffers
> > + 7,67% postgres postgres [.] AtEOXact_CatCache
> > + 6,30% postgres postgres [.] AllocSetCheck
> > + 5,34% postgres libc-2.12.so [.] __mcount_internal
> > + 2,14% postgres [kernel.kallsyms][k] activate_page
>
> That looks like you have configured with --enable-cassert and probably
> also --enable-profiling? The former will give completely distorted
> performance results...
Ah! Wrong PATH, so wrong binaries. Thanks Andres.
--
Dickson S. Guedes
mail/xmpp: guedes(at)guedesoft(dot)net - skype: guediz
http://guedesoft.net - http://www.postgresql.org.br
http://www.rnp.br/keyserver/pks/lookup?search=0x8F3E3C06D428D10A
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Atri Sharma | 2013-05-20 12:53:45 | Re: Why there is a union in HeapTupleHeaderData struct |
| Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2013-05-20 12:44:53 | Re: Why there is a union in HeapTupleHeaderData struct |