On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 08:21:51PM +0100, Filipe David Borba Manana wrote:
Count: 5013
Range: 25.000 - 497.000; Mean: 82.767; Median: 64.000; Stddev: 49.972
Percentiles: 90th: 141.000; 95th: 182.000; 99th: 287.000
25.000 - 33.930: 211 ##
33.930 - 45.927: 277
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 3:14 PM, David Sterba dste...@suse.cz wrote:
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 08:21:51PM +0100, Filipe David Borba Manana wrote:
Count: 5013
Range: 25.000 - 497.000; Mean: 82.767; Median: 64.000; Stddev: 49.972
Percentiles: 90th: 141.000; 95th: 182.000; 99th: 287.000
25.000
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 3:59 PM, David Sterba dste...@suse.cz wrote:
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 03:47:21PM +0100, Filipe David Manana wrote:
Sure.
They're actually better now :)
Thanks. The numbers changed in both samples, but the relative difference
is still 2x improvement in this particular
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 03:47:21PM +0100, Filipe David Manana wrote:
Sure.
They're actually better now :)
Thanks. The numbers changed in both samples, but the relative difference
is still 2x improvement in this particular test.
david
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe
When the binary search returns 0 (exact match), the target key
will necessarily be at slot 0 of all nodes below the current one,
so in this case the binary search is not needed because it will
always return 0, and we waste time doing it, holding node locks
for longer than necessary, etc.
Below
