Ants Aasma ants.aa...@eesti.ee wrote:
Concurrency 8 results should probably be ignored - variance was
huge, definitely more than the differences.
I'm not so sure it should be ignored -- one thing I noticed in
looking at the raw numbers from my benchmarks was that the -O2 code
was much more
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
This suggests that in the long term, it might be worth investigating
whether we can arrange for a connection's process to have some
degree of core affinity and encourage each process to allocate local
memory
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
This suggests that in the long term, it might be worth [...]
The other possibility is that the OS is smart enough about moving
things around to get good locality that sticking locality hints on
top
* Andres Freund:
I don't gcc will ever be able to call all possible misusages. E.g. The
List api is a case where its basically impossible to catch everything
(as gcc won't be able to figure out what the ListCell.data.ptr_value
pointed to originally in the general case).
Correct, if code is
Florian Weimer fwei...@bfk.de wrote:
* Andres Freund:
I don't gcc will ever be able to call all possible misusages.
E.g. The List api is a case where its basically impossible to
catch everything (as gcc won't be able to figure out what the
ListCell.data.ptr_value pointed to originally in
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 9:02 PM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
From my reading, it appears that if we get safe code in terms of
strict aliasing, we might be able to use the restrict keyword to
get further optimizations which bring it to a net win, but I think
there is
Florian Pflug f...@phlo.org wrote:
If we're concerned about helping the compiler produce better code,
I think we should try to make our code safe under strict aliasing
rules. AFAIK, that generally helps much more than
const-correctness. (Dunno how feasible that is, though)
To get a
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes:
The results were interesting. While the small overlap between
samples from the two builds at most levels means that this was
somewhat unlikely to be just sampling noise, there could have been
alignment issues that account for some of the
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes:
The results were interesting. While the small overlap between
samples from the two builds at most levels means that this was
somewhat unlikely to be just sampling noise, there could have
been alignment
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Dunno ... where were the warnings exactly?
Ah, you asked where, not what. I don't think I saved that, and
I had to reboot for a new kernel, so I don't have the buffer sitting
around. I'll do a new build and let you know shortly.
-Kevin
--
Sent via
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes:
Also, is there something I should do to deal with the warnings
before this would be considered a meaningful test?
Dunno ... where were the warnings
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Dunno ... where were the warnings exactly?
From HEAD checkout of a few minutes ago I now see only 9:
Hmm ... well, none of those look likely to be in performance-sensitive
areas. But I wonder just how good
Excerpts from Kevin Grittner's message of lun nov 14 17:30:50 -0300 2011:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes:
Also, is there something I should do to deal with the warnings
before this would be considered a meaningful test?
Dunno ...
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 06:25:19PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
All 10 were like this:
warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break
strict-aliasing rules
Uhm, shouldn't we expect there to be one warning for each use of a Node
using some specific node pointer type as
On Monday, November 14, 2011 10:25:19 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Kevin Grittner's message of lun nov 14 17:30:50 -0300 2011:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes:
Also, is there something I should do to deal with the warnings
On Monday, November 14, 2011 10:22:52 PM Tom Lane wrote:
Kevin Grittner kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov writes:
Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Dunno ... where were the warnings exactly?
From HEAD checkout of a few minutes ago I now see only 9:
Hmm ... well, none of those look likely to
16 matches
Mail list logo
