X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1549FDA5F6 for ; Sat, 8 Oct 2005 01:21:17 -0300 (ADT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 23539-07 for ; Sat, 8 Oct 2005 04:21:13 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.mi8.com (d01gw02.mi8.com [63.240.6.46]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B464DA5F4 for ; Sat, 8 Oct 2005 01:21:12 -0300 (ADT) Received: from 172.16.1.112 by mail.mi8.com with ESMTP (- Welcome to Mi8 Corporation www.Mi8.com (D2)); Sat, 08 Oct 2005 00:21:02 -0400 X-Server-Uuid: 7829E76E-BB9E-4995-8473-3C0929DF7DD1 Received: from MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com ([172.16.1.175]) by D01SMTP02.Mi8.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Sat, 8 Oct 2005 00:21:01 -0400 Received: from 69.181.100.71 ([69.181.100.71]) by MI8NYCMAIL06.Mi8.com ( [172.16.1.219]) via Exchange Front-End Server mi8owa.mi8.com ( [172.16.1.106]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Sat, 8 Oct 2005 00:21:01 -0500 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.0.050811 Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 21:20:59 -0700 Subject: Re: [HACKERS] A Better External Sort? From: "Luke Lonergan" To: mark@mark.mielke.cc Cc: "Steinar H. Gunderson" , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Message-ID: Thread-Topic: [HACKERS] [PERFORM] A Better External Sort? Thread-Index: AcXLv69K7ZnY8jeyEdqtDAANk63kWA== In-Reply-To: <20051008001704.GA11677@mark.mielke.cc> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Oct 2005 04:21:01.0963 (UTC) FILETIME=[B10E65B0:01C5CBBF] X-WSS-ID: 6F5996A40IW847127-01-01 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.556 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.025, FORGED_RCVD_HELO=0.05, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=1.531] X-Spam-Level: * X-Archive-Number: 200510/151 X-Sequence-Number: 14919 Mark, On 10/7/05 5:17 PM, "mark@mark.mielke.cc" wrote: > On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 04:55:28PM -0700, Luke Lonergan wrote: >> On 10/5/05 5:12 PM, "Steinar H. Gunderson" wrote: >>> What? strlen is definitely not in the kernel, and thus won't count as >>> system time. >> System time on Linux includes time spent in glibc routines. > > Do you have a reference for this? > > I believe this statement to be 100% false. How about 99%? OK, you're right, I had this confused with the profiling problem where glibc routines aren't included in dynamic linked profiles. Back to the statements earlier - the output of time had much of time for a dd spent in system, which means kernel, so where in the kernel would that be exactly? - Luke