От: Kenneth Marshall
Тема: Re: CPU bound
Дата: ,
Msg-id: 20101220154847.GX10252@aart.is.rice.edu
(см: обсуждение, исходный текст)
Ответ на: Re: CPU bound  (James Cloos)
Ответы: Re: CPU bound  (Jeremy Harris)
Список: pgsql-performance

Скрыть дерево обсуждения

CPU bound  (Royce Ausburn, )
 Re: CPU bound  (Craig Ringer, )
 Re: CPU bound  (Josh Berkus, )
  Re: CPU bound  (Royce Ausburn, )
 Re: CPU bound  (James Cloos, )
  Re: CPU bound  (Mladen Gogala, )
   Re: CPU bound  (James Cloos, )
    Re: CPU bound  (Kenneth Marshall, )
     Re: CPU bound  (Jeremy Harris, )
    Re: CPU bound  (Mladen Gogala, )
   Re: CPU bound  (Jim Nasby, )
    Re: CPU bound  (Mladen Gogala, )
     Question: BlockSize > 8192 with FusionIO  ("Strange, John W", )
      Re: Question: BlockSize > 8192 with FusionIO  (Greg Smith, )
       Re: Question: BlockSize > 8192 with FusionIO  (Merlin Moncure, )
        Re: Question: BlockSize > 8192 with FusionIO  (Ben Chobot, )
         Re: Question: BlockSize > 8192 with FusionIO  ("Strange, John W", )
          Re: Question: BlockSize > 8192 with FusionIO  ("Strange, John W", )
        Re: Question: BlockSize > 8192 with FusionIO  (Scott Carey, )

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 10:33:26AM -0500, James Cloos wrote:
> >>>>> "MG" == Mladen Gogala <> writes:
>
> MG> Good time accounting is the most compelling reason for having a wait
> MG> event interface, like Oracle. Without the wait event interface, one
> MG> cannot really tell where the time is spent, at least not without
> MG> profiling the database code, which is not an option for a production
> MG> database.
>
> And how exactly, given that the kernel does not know whether the CPU is
> active or waiting on ram, could an application do so?
>

Exactly. I have only seen this data from hardware emulators. It would
be nice to have...  :)

Ken


В списке pgsql-performance по дате сообщения:

От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: UNION and bad performance
От: tuanhoanganh
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: PostgreSQL 9.0 x64 bit pgbench TPC very low question?