On Thu, 29 Dec 2016, Richard Hipp wrote:
Change log for the 3.16.0 release: https://www.sqlite.org/draft/releaselog/3_16_0.html
What caught my attention the most about the release log was the "Uses 9% fewer CPU cycles" and link to https://www.sqlite.org/draft/cpu.html where it describes using valgrind's cachegrind to meausure CPU cycle usage.
While the CPU is instrumented (by valgrind) at the instruction level and cache misses are recorded, it seems to me that cachegrind is an advanced simulation. Is there a way to know how well cachegrind CPU cycles map to real-world CPU usage? If sqlite3 consumes 2X less "CPU cycles" since 2009 is there a way to measure how much less actual CPU time that it takes in order to validate that there is a clear relationship?
Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
