I don't thing so differention on speed depends on compilation or other
options. I compile 8.0 and 7.4.6 from source today. I didn't use any
option for configure. But the difference is too big for optimalizations.
[root(at)stehule root]# uname -a
Linux stehule.fsv.cvut.cz 2.6.4 #1 SMP Mon Mar 15 17:21:52 CET 2004 i586
i586 i386 GNU/Linux
[root(at)stehule root]# gcc --version
gcc (GCC) 3.3 20030715 (Red Hat Linux 3.3-14)
I know PostgreSQL is little slowly when started new block BEGIN END now
when I use catch exceptions. But in this test isn't any other subblock. Only
one cycle and some basic arithmetic operations.
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Michael Fuhr wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 05:05:00PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Pavel Stehule <stehule(at)kix(dot)fsv(dot)cvut(dot)cz> writes:
> > >> And?
> > >>
> > >> (ie, what test case are you talking about?)
> > > This test is function for searching max factor. It is speaking only about
> > > quality of interpret an language. I would ask why?
> > So I can replicate your test.
> SELECT delitel(1000000, 1);
> Mean times over the last five of six runs on my poor 500MHz FreeBSD
> 4.11-PRERELEASE box:
> 6741 ms 7.4.6 (from FreeBSD ports collection)
> 14427 ms 8.0.0rc5 (from CVS source)
> I remembered that I had build 8.0.0rc5 with --enable-debug so I
> rebuilt it without that option, not sure if that would make a
> difference. The mean time increased by 8% to 15580 ms, which was
> opposite from what I expected. I re-ran the 7.4.6 tests and they
> came out the same as they had before.
> I'm not sure what optimization flags (if any) the ports build of
> 7.4.6 might have used. I can take a closer look if you think it
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2005-01-13 23:25:10|
|Subject: Re: Slow PL/pgSQL 8.0.RC5 (7.4.6. 3times faster) |
|Previous:||From: Mark Wong||Date: 2005-01-13 23:09:19|
|Subject: Re: sparse (static analyzer) report|