Re: gprof SELECT COUNT(*) results
| От | Greg Stark | 
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: gprof SELECT COUNT(*) results | 
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 87veyhjtr0.fsf@stark.xeocode.com обсуждение исходный текст  | 
		
| Ответ на | Re: gprof SELECT COUNT(*) results (Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq@cs.toronto.edu>) | 
| Ответы | 
                	
            		Re: gprof SELECT COUNT(*) results
            		
            		 | 
		
| Список | pgsql-hackers | 
Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq@cs.toronto.edu> writes: > Yeah, understood. What I can't understand that in this case why it costs > so much -- without concurrency, the LWLock code path just invloves > spinlock_lock/unlock and serveral simple instructions? You executed LWLock 2.6 million times in just under 300ms. If my math is right that's about 115 nanoseconds per lock or about 300 cycles on a 2.6Ghz processor. That sounds like a lot but it's about the right order of magnitude. Was this on a multiprocessor machine? In which case a big part of that time is probably spent synchronizing between the processors. -- greg
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: