Matthew Wakeling <matthew@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > So it seems that btree_gist and bioseg are not using that much CPU at all, > compared to core postgres code. In fact, the majority of time seems to be > spent in libc. Unfortunately my libc doesn't have any debugging symbols. hmm ... memcpy or qsort maybe? > Anyway, running opannotate seems to make it clear that time *is* spent in > the gistnext function, but almost all of that is in children of the > function. Lots of time is actually spent in fmgr_oldstyle though. So it'd be worth converting your functions to V1 style. > I'm guessing my next step is to install a version of libc with debugging > symbols? Yeah, if you want to find out what's happening in libc, that's what you need. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
