Greg Smith wrote:
On Thu, 23 Nov 2006, Tom Lane wrote:
* It does not check for errors (if it had, you might have realized the
other problem).
All the test_fsync code needs to check for errors better; there have been
multiple occasions where I've run that with quesiontable input and it
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not sure if people want this for 8.2. I think we can modify
test_fsync.c anytime but the movement of the defines into an include
file is a backend code change.
I think fooling with this on the day before RC1 is an unreasonable risk ...
and I disapprove
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not sure if people want this for 8.2. I think we can modify
test_fsync.c anytime but the movement of the defines into an include
file is a backend code change.
I think fooling with this on the day before RC1 is an unreasonable risk
Neil Conway wrote:
On Fri, 2006-11-24 at 11:08 +1300, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
- Modifies do_numeric_accum to have an extra bool parameter and does not
calc sumX2 when it is false.
I think it would be clearer to reorganize this function slightly, and
have only a single branch on useSumX2. On
Neil Conway wrote:
(it is still slower than doing sum/count - possibly due to the
construct/deconstruct overhead of the numeric transition array).
This would indeed be worth profiling. If it turns out that array
overhead is significant, I wonder if we could use a composite type for
the
So, if I understand this correctly, we're calling Alloc and ContextAlloc 10
times for every row being summed?
There are approx 10M rows and the profile snippet below shows 100M calls to
each of those.
- Luke
On 11/24/06 4:46 PM, Mark Kirkwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
time seconds
Luke Lonergan wrote:
So, if I understand this correctly, we're calling Alloc and ContextAlloc 10
times for every row being summed?
There are approx 10M rows and the profile snippet below shows 100M calls to
each of those.
Unless I've accidentally run gprof on the profile output for a 100M
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
Luke Lonergan wrote:
So, if I understand this correctly, we're calling Alloc and
ContextAlloc 10
times for every row being summed?
There are approx 10M rows and the profile snippet below shows 100M
calls to
each of those.
Unless I've accidentally run gprof on the
