Re: [PERFORM] Foreign key performance

Stephan Szabo wrote:
>
> [Not sure this really is relevant for -performance at this point]
>
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, Stephan Szabo wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 18 Apr 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > > Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> writes:
> > > > It appears (from some not terribly scientific experiments - see below)
> > > > that it's likely to be related to managing the deferred trigger queue
> > > > given that in my case at least running the constraints non-deferred was
> > > > negligible in comparison.
> > >
> > > At one time the deferred-trigger queue had an O(N^2) behavioral problem
> > > for large N = number of pending trigger events. But I thought we'd
> > > fixed that. What's the test case exactly? Can you get a profile with
> > > gprof?
> >
> > I'm going to tomorrow hopefully - but it looks to me that we fixed one, but
>
> Argh. I'm getting that state where gprof returns all 0s for times. I'm
> pretty sure this has come up before along with how to get it to work, but
> I couldn't find it in the archives. Someday I'll learn how to use gprof. :(

You have to save and restore the timers around the fork() under Linux.

Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #