Re: MemoryContextSwitchTo during table scan?
От | Jignesh Shah |
---|---|
Тема | Re: MemoryContextSwitchTo during table scan? |
Дата | |
Msg-id | BAY101-F22C68A84110DBB2CA82199D0B60@phx.gbl обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: MemoryContextSwitchTo during table scan? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-performance |
Hi Tom, Like I mentioned I am using DTrace on Solaris 10 x64 and not gprof. DTrace is not based on sampling but actual entry/exit point. Ofcourse my 10 second profile is just a sample that I can assure you is representative of the query since it is a very simple query that does simple table scan. (I am taken profiles at different times of the queries all giving similar outputs) In case of DTrace I am actually measuring "wall clock" for leaf functions. For more information on DTrace please refer to: http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/817-6223/6mlkidlf1?a=view Regards, Jignesh ----Original Message Follows---- From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> To: "Jignesh Shah" <jigneshk@hotmail.com> CC: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [PERFORM] MemoryContextSwitchTo during table scan? Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 11:41:40 -0400 "Jignesh Shah" <jigneshk@hotmail.com> writes: > Running a script (available on my blog) I find the following top 5 functions > where it spends most time during a 10 second run of the script It's pretty risky to draw conclusions from only 10 seconds' worth of gprof data --- that's only 1000 samples total at the common sampling rate of 100/sec. If there's one function eating 90% of the runtime, you'll find out, but you don't have enough data to believe that you know what is happening with resolution of a percent or so. I generally try to accumulate several minutes worth of CPU time in a gprof run. > MemoryContextSwitchTo and LockBuffer itself takes 15% of the total time of > the query. I was expecting "read" to be the slowest part (biggest component) > but it was way down in the 0.4% level. You do know that gprof counts only CPU time, and only user-space CPU time at that? read() isn't going to show up at all. It's fairly likely that your test case is I/O bound and that worrying about CPU efficiency for it is a waste of time anyway. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: