On Sun, 2006-03-05 at 15:15 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stefan Kaltenbrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > samples % symbol name
> > 24915704 96.2170 ltsReleaseBlock
> > 387265 1.4955 LogicalTapeRead
> > 168725 0.6516 inlineApplySortFunction
>
> Hmm ... the comment in ltsReleaseBlock sez
>
> /*
> * Insert blocknum into array, preserving decreasing order (so that
> * ltsGetFreeBlock returns the lowest available block number). This could
> * get fairly slow if there were many free blocks, but we don't expect
> * there to be very many at one time.
> */
>
> We probably need to tweak things so this doesn't get called during the
> "final merge" pass. Looking at it now.
OK. I also had a report of poor performance, just isolated to the final
merge pass and sucked quite badly; sounds like you've located the cause.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
