Qingqing Zhou wrote: > > "Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > > > > Hm? I don't see any improvement there: > > > > I was referening this sentence, though I am not sure why that's the > expectation: > > > > "Bruce Momjian" <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote > > If the patch worked, the first and third times will be similar, and > > the second time will be high.
I meant that the non-stats and the patched stats should be the similar, and the stats without the patch (the second test) should be high. > -- After patch -- > > real 0m1.275s > user 0m0.097s > sys 0m0.160s > > real 0m4.063s > user 0m0.663s > sys 0m0.377s > > real 0m1.259s > user 0m0.073s > sys 0m0.160s I assume the above is just running the same test three times, right? -- Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
