Message-ID: <463A4ED6.2040907@mochima.com>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 17:06:30 -0400
From: Carlos Moreno <moreno_pg@mochima.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (X11/20070326)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Feature Request --- was: PostgreSQL Performance Tuning
References: 
 <OFC96167D5.6BB63AC2-ON652572C9.003B5263-652572C9.003E4142@lntinfotech.com>
	<200705010923.47951.josh@agliodbs.com>
	<Pine.GSO.4.64.0705012154380.24215@westnet.com>
	<200705031221.56226.josh@agliodbs.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0705031314310.26172@asgard.lang.hm>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0705031314310.26172@asgard.lang.hm>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


>> CPUs, 32/64bit, or clock speeds.   So any attempt to determine "how 
>> fast"
>> a CPU is, even on a 1-5 scale, requires matching against a database of
>> regexes which would have to be kept updated.
>>
>> And let's not even get started on Windows.
>
> I think the only sane way to try and find the cpu speed is to just do 
> a busy loop of some sort (ideally something that somewhat resembles 
> the main code) and see how long it takes. you may have to do this a 
> few times until you get a loop that takes long enough (a few seconds) 
> on a fast processor

I was going to suggest just that (but then was afraid that again I may have
been just being naive) --- I can't remember the exact name, but I remember
using (on some Linux flavor) an API call that fills a struct with data 
on the
resource usage for the process, including CPU time;  I assume measured
with precision  (that is, immune to issues of other applications running
simultaneously, or other random events causing the measurement to be
polluted by random noise).

As for 32/64 bit --- doesn't PG already know that information?  I mean,
./configure does gather that information --- does it not?

Carlos
--