Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort?
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PERFORM] A Better External Sort? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 7788.1128434784@sss.pgh.pa.us 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 |
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> writes: > A quick binary search puts the cutoff between 1200 and 1300. Given > version variation I picked a nice round number, 1500. > Ugh, that's for -O2, for -O3 and above it needs to be 4100 to work. > Maybe we should go for 5000 or so. > I'm using: gcc (GCC) 3.3.5 (Debian 1:3.3.5-13) I don't know what the units of this number are, but it's apparently far too gcc-version-dependent to consider putting into our build scripts. Using gcc version 4.0.1 20050727 (current Fedora Core 4 compiler) on i386, and compiling tuplesort.c as you did, I find:-O2: warning goes away between 800 and 900-O3: warning is always there(tried values up to 10000000) (the latter behavior may indicate a bug, not sure). What's even more interesting is that the warning does not appear in either case if I omit -finline-limit --- so the default value is plenty. At least on this particular compiler, the proposed switch would be counterproductive. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: