Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort?
От | Simon Riggs |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1128376292.8603.142.camel@localhost.localdomain обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort? (Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort?
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, 2005-10-02 at 21:38 +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > Ok, I tried two optimisations: > > 2. By specifying: -Winline -finline-limit-1500 (only on tuplesort.c). > This causes inlineApplySortFunction() to be inlined, like the code > obviously expects it to be. > > default build (baseline) 235 seconds > -finline only 217 seconds (7% better) > comparetup_index_fastbyval4 only 221 seconds (6% better) > comparetup_index_fastbyval4 and -finline 203 seconds (13.5% better) > > This is indexing the integer sequence column on a 2.7 million row > table. The times are as given by gprof and so exclude system call time. > > Basically, I recommend adding "-Winline -finline-limit-1500" to the > default build while we discuss other options. I add -Winline but get no warnings. Why would I use -finline-limit-1500? I'm interested, but uncertain as to what difference this makes. Surely using -O3 works fine? Best Regards, Simon Riggs
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: