Re: Better LWLocks with compare-and-swap (9.4)
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Better LWLocks with compare-and-swap (9.4) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20130520123528.GA6146@alap2.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Better LWLocks with compare-and-swap (9.4) ("Dickson S. Guedes" <listas@guedesoft.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: Better LWLocks with compare-and-swap (9.4)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-05-20 09:31:15 -0300, Dickson S. Guedes wrote: > Hum, I was supposing that I was doing something wrong but I'm getting > the same result as before even using your test case and my results is > still different from yours: > > > + 71,27% postgres postgres [.] AtEOXact_Buffers > + 7,67% postgres postgres [.] AtEOXact_CatCache > + 6,30% postgres postgres [.] AllocSetCheck > + 5,34% postgres libc-2.12.so [.] __mcount_internal > + 2,14% postgres [kernel.kallsyms][k] activate_page That looks like you have configured with --enable-cassert and probably also --enable-profiling? The former will give completely distorted performance results... Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: