| From: | Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu> |
|---|---|
| To: | James Cloos <cloos(at)jhcloos(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Mladen Gogala <mladen(dot)gogala(at)vmsinfo(dot)com>, Royce Ausburn <royce(at)inomial(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: CPU bound |
| Date: | 2010-12-20 15:48:47 |
| Message-ID: | 20101220154847.GX10252@aart.is.rice.edu |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 10:33:26AM -0500, James Cloos wrote:
> >>>>> "MG" == Mladen Gogala <mladen(dot)gogala(at)vmsinfo(dot)com> writes:
>
> MG> Good time accounting is the most compelling reason for having a wait
> MG> event interface, like Oracle. Without the wait event interface, one
> MG> cannot really tell where the time is spent, at least not without
> MG> profiling the database code, which is not an option for a production
> MG> database.
>
> And how exactly, given that the kernel does not know whether the CPU is
> active or waiting on ram, could an application do so?
>
Exactly. I have only seen this data from hardware emulators. It would
be nice to have... :)
Ken
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fernando Hevia | 2010-12-20 15:50:13 | Re: postgres performance tunning |
| Previous Message | James Cloos | 2010-12-20 15:33:26 | Re: CPU bound |