Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Help with tuning this query (with
От | John A Meinel |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Help with tuning this query (with |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 422CDA2A.1000105@arbash-meinel.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Help with tuning this query (with explain analyze finally) ("Dave Held" <dave.held@arrayservicesgrp.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Help with tuning this query (with
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
Dave Held wrote: >There is always clock(). It's mandated by ANSI C, but my docs say >that POSIX requires CLOCKS_PER_SEC == 1000000 regardless of actual >timer resolution, which seems a little brain-dead to me. > >__ >David B. Held > > My experience with clock() on win32 is that CLOCKS_PER_SEC was 1000, and it had a resolution of 55clocks / s. When I just did this: int main(int argc, char **argv) { int start = clock(); int now = start; cout << "Clock: " << CLOCKS_PER_SEC << endl; for(int i = 0; i < 10; ++i) { while(now == clock()) { // Do nothing } now = clock(); cout << now-start << "\t" << (now - start) / (double) CLOCKS_PER_SEC << endl; } } I got: Clock: 1000 16 0.016 31 0.031 47 0.047 62 0.062 78 0.078 93 0.093 109 0.109 125 0.125 141 0.141 156 0.156 Which is about 1/0.016 = 62.5 clocks per second. I'm pretty sure this is slightly worse than what we want. :) It might be better on other platforms, but on win32 clock() is most definitely *not* what you want. John =:->
Вложения
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: