Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Timing overhead and Linux clock sources

From: Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at>
To: Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Timing overhead and Linux clock sources
Date: 2012-08-28 08:24:42
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> After staring at all the examples I generated again, I think Bruce is right
> that the newer format he's suggesting is better.  I know I never thought
> about whether reordering for easier interpretation made sense before, and
> I'd also guess "it was less coding" for the existing order was the only
> reason Ants did it that way.

That is correct, I didn't really have a preference for the order so I
went for simpler is better.

I agree that the order suggested by Bruce looks better. Having seen
more measurements I'd have to say that the histogram is mostly
useless. It seems to me that it mostly shows OS scheduling noise. I
would even say that the histogram output should be hidden behind an
command line option to avoid unnecessary confusion.

Ants Aasma
Cybertec Schönig & Schönig GmbH
Gröhrmühlgasse 26
A-2700 Wiener Neustadt

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Kohei KaiGaiDate: 2012-08-28 08:37:47
Subject: Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables
Previous:From: Dean RasheedDate: 2012-08-28 06:48:11
Subject: Re: Proof of concept: auto updatable views

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group