| From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Gevik Babakhani <pgdev(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Slow regression tests on windows |
| Date: | 2007-11-05 16:03:08 |
| Message-ID: | 20071105160308.GG24416@svr2.hagander.net |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 11:01:26AM -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >>From what I can see MinGW regression is somewhat slower than MSVC (and
> >>even than Cygwin) on my buildfarm VM that runs all three, even though
> >>the latter two are rate limited by MAX_CONNECTIONS.
> >>
> >
> >Uh, you're saying MSVC and Cygwin somehow differ from MingW?
> >
> >
> >
>
> I'm saying my buildfarm members differ from each other.
Ah. I thought you meant we had some builtin cap in the regression tests,
which is what confused me.
> In fact, on the last run of each, MinGW was by far the slowest and
> Cygwin the fastest in the "make check" step. But there could be any
> number of reasons for that, including extraneous activity on the VM host
> that could have slowed the whole VM down.
Yeah. It does surprise me a lot that cygwin should be fastest, really.
> Anyway, comparing regression test speeds is probably not very productive.
Agreed.
//Magnus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-11-05 16:10:39 | Re: Proposal: PL/pgSQL EXECUTE INTO USING (for 8.4) |
| Previous Message | Gokulakannan Somasundaram | 2007-11-05 16:02:08 | Re: Fwd: Clarification about HOT |