| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Steinar H(dot) Gunderson" <sgunderson(at)bigfoot(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dave Held <dave(dot)held(at)arrayservicesgrp(dot)com>, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, John A Meinel <john(at)arbash-meinel(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net>, Ken Egervari <ken(at)upfactor(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers-win32(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PERFORM] Help with tuning this query (with |
| Date: | 2005-03-08 02:02:38 |
| Message-ID: | 1971.1110247358@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers-win32 pgsql-performance |
"Steinar H. Gunderson" <sgunderson(at)bigfoot(dot)com> writes:
> RDTSC is a bad source of information for this kind of thing, as the CPU
> frequency might vary.
One thought that was bothering me was that if the CPU goes idle while
waiting for disk I/O, its clock might stop or slow down dramatically.
If we believed such a counter for EXPLAIN, we'd severely understate
the cost of disk I/O.
I dunno if that is the case on any Windows hardware or not, but none
of this thread is making me feel confident that we know what
QueryPerformanceCounter does measure.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Steinar H. Gunderson | 2005-03-08 02:06:24 | Re: [PERFORM] Help with tuning this query (with |
| Previous Message | Steinar H. Gunderson | 2005-03-08 01:37:50 | Re: [PERFORM] Help with tuning this query (with |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Steinar H. Gunderson | 2005-03-08 02:06:24 | Re: [PERFORM] Help with tuning this query (with |
| Previous Message | Steinar H. Gunderson | 2005-03-08 01:37:50 | Re: [PERFORM] Help with tuning this query (with |