|
From: Roman S. <rom...@re...> - 2007-04-16 14:50:58
|
>> Now CPU is not overloaded. On the contrary it overloading is about 1-3%. >> Profiling gives such results: >> >> Routine Name Time Time with Children Shared Time Hit Count >> ISC_event_wait 171,70 172,64 99,46 8642 >> enterFastMutex 124,45 124,80 99,72 34410 >> wait_for_request 40,61 129,46 31,37 2939 >> PIO_write 10,10 10,10 99,96 2550 >> > How many processes described profile above ? What i must see in it ? > > It is very strange that 2550 calls of PIO_write took just 10 ms. Are your > database is in RAM ? ;) > > The profile describes one process and four process more were running parallel. PIO_write was called from down_grade many times. I can send you profile project with full results. >> Classic acts very slow as compared with Super when inserting data. >> > Any numbers ? Classic was always slower than Super, nothing new here > > >> My platform configuration is: >> OS: Windows XP SP 2, x86 - 32 bit; >> CPU: Athlon 64 X2 Dual. >> RAM: 2Gb >> > Does you made performance comparison between old and new mutexes ? > > Yes. I ran four test procedures described in the first letter. Each of them inserts 100 000 records. The results: On classic New version with fast mutex - 8 minutes Old version without fast mutex - 1 minute On super Both versions - 5 seconds!!! Roman! |