From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: GiST index performance |
Date: | 2009-06-11 15:39:52 |
Message-ID: | 24123.1244734792@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Matthew Wakeling <matthew(at)flymine(dot)org> writes:
> So it seems that btree_gist and bioseg are not using that much CPU at all,
> compared to core postgres code. In fact, the majority of time seems to be
> spent in libc. Unfortunately my libc doesn't have any debugging symbols.
hmm ... memcpy or qsort maybe?
> Anyway, running opannotate seems to make it clear that time *is* spent in
> the gistnext function, but almost all of that is in children of the
> function. Lots of time is actually spent in fmgr_oldstyle though.
So it'd be worth converting your functions to V1 style.
> I'm guessing my next step is to install a version of libc with debugging
> symbols?
Yeah, if you want to find out what's happening in libc, that's what you
need.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2009-06-11 16:23:29 | Re: Postgres replication: dump/restore, PITR, Slony,...? |
Previous Message | Matthew Wakeling | 2009-06-11 15:07:12 | Re: GiST index performance |