Re: Avg performance for int8/numeric

From: Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>
To: Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>
Cc: Luke Lonergan <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Eng <eng(at)intranet(dot)greenplum(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: Avg performance for int8/numeric
Date: 2006-11-25 02:03:42
Message-ID: 4567A47E.7090205@paradise.net.nz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> Luke Lonergan wrote:
>> So, if I understand this correctly, we're calling Alloc and
>> ContextAlloc 10
>> times for every row being summed?
>>
>> There are approx 10M rows and the profile snippet below shows 100M
>> calls to
>> each of those.
>>
>
> Unless I've accidentally run gprof on the profile output for a 100M row
> case I had lying around :-( ... I'll check
>

I haven't (so profile as attached is ok)...

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark Kirkwood 2006-11-25 02:16:39 Re: [PATCHES] Avg performance for int8/numeric
Previous Message Mark Kirkwood 2006-11-25 01:46:35 Re: Avg performance for int8/numeric

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark Kirkwood 2006-11-25 02:16:39 Re: [PATCHES] Avg performance for int8/numeric
Previous Message Mark Kirkwood 2006-11-25 01:46:35 Re: Avg performance for int8/numeric