Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: [PERFORM] Help with tuning this query (with

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: John A Meinel <john(at)arbash-meinel(dot)com>
Cc: Dave Held <dave(dot)held(at)arrayservicesgrp(dot)com>,pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Help with tuning this query (with
Date: 2005-03-07 22:56:39
Message-ID: 15994.1110236199@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers-win32pgsql-performance
John A Meinel <john(at)arbash-meinel(dot)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. When I just did this:

The other problem is it measures process CPU time, not elapsed time
which is probably more significant for our purposes.

Which brings up a question: just what does QueryPerformanceCounter
measure?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Dave PageDate: 2005-03-07 23:08:57
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Help with tuning this query (with
Previous:From: John A MeinelDate: 2005-03-07 22:48:10
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Help with tuning this query (with

pgsql-hackers-win32 by date

Next:From: Dave PageDate: 2005-03-07 23:08:57
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Help with tuning this query (with
Previous:From: John A MeinelDate: 2005-03-07 22:48:10
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Help with tuning this query (with

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group