Rick Hillegas wrote:
> > 2) I seem to recall that, earlier this year, optimizer modifications > bloated up the the per-query running time. > I second Army's note... I would like to see specifics if true. The only known problem after original Army's fixes is with NIST test taking much longer, for which Army submitted a fix sometime ago. I checked in the fix into trunk yesterday. If anyone know any specific performance regressions, I would like to know about them. Satheesh > -Rick > > David W. Van Couvering wrote: > >> <rant on> >> Sorry, but it is so frustrating. I started a derbyall run at 9 this >> morning, and it was still running this evening. My CPU was at 100%, >> I could get barely any work done, and then my machine hung up, I had >> to reboot, and the way our harness works you have to start >> *completely from scratch* -- there is no way to start from the >> beginning. >> </rant off> >> >> If I weren't so busy trying to get some this i18n work completed I >> would do the work of defining a smaller MATS. >> >> Instead I must sigh and restart the thing all over again. Hopefully >> by tomorrow morning it will be completed. I have two other patches >> in the queue waiting for machine resources so I can run derbyall for >> them as well... >> >> David > > > > >
