Re: Making hash indexes worthwhile

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Making hash indexes worthwhile
Date: 2009-10-05 13:49:43
Message-ID: 6429.1254750583@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Do you know why that should be? I've done some work with gprof, and
> the results are pretty suspect, because the total gprof time adds up
> to only about 1/3 of the total time the backend spends on CPU
> (according to "top"), and I don't know where the unaccounted for time
> is going.

Are you sure that gprof is delivering trustworthy numbers at all?
I've seen cases where it was consistently mis-timing things.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=151763
Admittedly that was an old Linux version, but ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Gierth 2009-10-05 13:53:56 Re: Rules: A Modest Proposal
Previous Message Andrew Gierth 2009-10-05 13:36:41 first-draft patch for aggregate ORDER BY