4 ms·
Very true! I wouldn't expect any blocking IO here (except for the first run). I would still expect the majority of the time be spent reading from memory vs CPU
by dahfizz 4y ago
Very true! I wouldn't expect any blocking IO here (except for the first run). I would still expect the majority of the time be spent reading from memory vs CPU bound "number crunching".
I should have been clearer. In my day job we are latency sensitive and we'll refer to excessively hitting main memory as being IO bound.
- burntsushi 4y agoYour query might be memory bound, but might not be. You've got to attain very high speeds to be memory bound. In your case, you chose a query that likely matches quite frequently, no? If so, it's certainly not going to be memory bound because of the overhead of dealing with all those matches. Try a literal that doesn't match or matches very rarely and you'll have a better shot at being limited by memory bandwidth. (But still maybe not.)