| From: | James Cloos <cloos(at)jhcloos(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mladen Gogala <mladen(dot)gogala(at)vmsinfo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Royce Ausburn <royce(at)inomial(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance\(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: CPU bound |
| Date: | 2010-12-20 15:33:26 |
| Message-ID: | m362uo5uht.fsf@jhcloos.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
>>>>> "MG" == Mladen Gogala <mladen(dot)gogala(at)vmsinfo(dot)com> writes:
MG> Good time accounting is the most compelling reason for having a wait
MG> event interface, like Oracle. Without the wait event interface, one
MG> cannot really tell where the time is spent, at least not without
MG> profiling the database code, which is not an option for a production
MG> database.
And how exactly, given that the kernel does not know whether the CPU is
active or waiting on ram, could an application do so?
-JimC
--
James Cloos <cloos(at)jhcloos(dot)com> OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kenneth Marshall | 2010-12-20 15:48:47 | Re: CPU bound |
| Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2010-12-20 14:24:14 | Re: PostgreSQL 9.0 x64 bit pgbench TPC very low question? |