Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Help with tuning this query (with
От | Dave Held |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] Help with tuning this query (with |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 49E94D0CFCD4DB43AFBA928DDD20C8F90261846D@asg002.asg.local обсуждение исходный текст |
Список | pgsql-performance |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us] > Sent: Monday, March 07, 2005 4:57 PM > To: John A Meinel > Cc: Dave Held; pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; > pgsql-hackers-win32@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] [PERFORM] Help with tuning > this query > (with > > John A Meinel <john@arbash-meinel.com> writes: > > Dave Held wrote: > >> There is always clock(). > > > My experience with clock() on win32 is that CLOCKS_PER_SEC > > was 1000, and it had a resolution of 55clocks / s. Which is why I suggested QueryPerformanceCounter for Win32. I only suggested clock() for *nix. > The other problem is it measures process CPU time, not elapsed time > which is probably more significant for our purposes. Actually, the bigger problem is that a quick test of clock() on Linux shows that it only has a maximum resolution of 10ms on my hardware. Looks like gettimeofday() is the best choice. > Which brings up a question: just what does QueryPerformanceCounter > measure? I think it measures raw CPU cycles, roughly, which seems like it would more or less correspond to wall time. __ David B. Held Software Engineer/Array Services Group 200 14th Ave. East, Sartell, MN 56377 320.534.3637 320.253.7800 800.752.8129
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: