On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Tom Lane wrote: > > I don't see those costing nearly as much as your results show > ... perhaps there's something platform-specific at work? > What I see, down to the 1% level, is >
I can see your computer is really slow, so my theory is that since it is easy to hold a running-slowly horse than a fast one, so my spinlock on a 2.4G modern machine should takes relatively longer time to get effective. Just kidding. I am not sure what's happened, but in previous email there is a program I wrote to test the spinlock performance. In my machine, the profiling results matches the single spinlock test. > > The only other objection I can think of is that if there are any broken > tuples on a page, this approach would likely make it impossible to fetch > any of the non-broken ones :-( > What do you mean by "broken tuple"? An data corrupted tuple? So you mean if scan operator find a broken tuple on a page, then it will abort the operation without returning any other good tuples? I think this is acceptable. Regards, Qingqing ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
