From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org>
Cc: Stephan Vollmer <svollmer@gmx.de>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgreSQL.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Creation of tsearch2 index is very slow
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 15:21:45 -0500
Message-ID: <26583.1137788505@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060120201036.GE31908@svana.org>
References: <43D0ED57.1020608@gmx.de>
<17454.1137771321@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20060120170452.GC31908@svana.org>
<26153.1137784469@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20060120201036.GE31908@svana.org>
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> writes:
> Something I'm missing is the calls to tsearch functions. I'm not 100%
> familiar with gprof, but is it possible those costs have been added
> somewhere else because it's in a shared library? Perhaps the costs went
> into FunctionCall1/3?
I think that the tsearch functions must be the stuff charged as
"data_start" (which is not actually any symbol in our source code).
That is showing as being called by FunctionCallN which is what you'd
expect.
If the totals given by gprof are correct, then it's down in the noise.
I don't think I trust that too much ... but I don't see anything in the
gprof manual about how to include a dynamically loaded library in the
profile. (I did compile tsearch2 with -pg, but that's evidently not
enough.)
I'll see if I can link tsearch2 statically to resolve this question.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, kleptog@svana.org, svollmer@gmx.de
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Creation of tsearch2 index is very slow
In-Reply-To: <26583.1137788505@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox