2011/6/1 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 8:43 PM, Cédric Villemain
> <cedric(dot)villemain(dot)debian(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Yes, while here I noticed that the query was long to be killed.
>> I added a CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPT() in the for(;;) loop in nodeHashjoin.c.
>> It fixes the delay when trying to kill but I don't know about
>> performance impact this can have in this place of the code.
> Well, seems easy enough to find out: just test the query with and
> without your patch (and without casserts). If there's no measurable
> difference on this query, there probably won't be one anywhere
Oh damned, I am currently with an eeepc, I'll need 2 days to bench that :-D
I'll see tomorow.
> Robert Haas
> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
Cédric Villemain 2ndQuadrant
http://2ndQuadrant.fr/ PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Craig Ringer||Date: 2011-06-01 01:40:52|
|Subject: Re: Delete performance|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2011-06-01 00:55:38|
|Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Hash Anti Join performance degradation|
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Craig Ringer||Date: 2011-06-01 01:13:25|
|Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #6046: select current_date crashes postgres|
|Previous:||From: Brendan Jurd||Date: 2011-06-01 01:05:39|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] DOCS: SGML identifier may not exceed 44 characters|