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

Re: pg_test_timing tool for EXPLAIN ANALYZE overhead

From: Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org>
To: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Jay Levitt <jay(dot)levitt(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, ants(dot)aasma(at)eesti(dot)ee
Subject: Re: pg_test_timing tool for EXPLAIN ANALYZE overhead
Date: 2012-02-22 18:45:47
Message-ID: CABRT9RBgE=x6W_d0VPrCdpTMu1hus+xVujf_Z1OpPeK0yPLU1g@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 19:36, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> From the patch:
>
> Newer operating systems may check for the known TSC problems and
> switch to a slower, more stable clock source when they are seen.
> If your system supports TSC time but doesn't default to that, it
> may be disabled for a good reason.

Sorry, I was under the impression that the stability of Windows's
QueryPerformanceCounter() API is hardware-dependent, but I haven't
coded under Windows for a long time -- maybe it's improved in recent
versions.

Regards,
Marti

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2012-02-22 18:57:12
Subject: Re: VACUUM ANALYZE is faster than ANALYZE?
Previous:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2012-02-22 18:36:38
Subject: Re: VACUUM ANALYZE is faster than ANALYZE?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2013 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group