Re: Same query, same performance

From: "alexandre :: aldeia digital" <alepaes(at)aldeiadigital(dot)com(dot)br>
To: <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Same query, same performance
Date: 2003-01-23 19:49:37
Message-ID: 10840.200.225.202.15.1043351377.squirrel@webmail.ad2.com.br
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Tomasz,

>>1) ! 1.185424 elapsed 1.090000 user 0.100000 system sec
>>2) ! 1.184415 elapsed 1.070000 user 0.120000 system sec
>>3) ! 1.185209 elapsed 1.100000 user 0.080000 system sec
>>
>>If the disks is not read directly, the system must find
>>the rows in RAM. If it find in RAM, why so diffrents machines
>>have the times of execution and why the times does not down ???
>
> Here is your problem:
> -> Seq Scan on fn06t t1 (cost=0.00..25808.30 rows=15 width=95)
> Filter: ((fn06emp07 = 1::smallint) AND (fn06tiptit =
> 'R'::bpchar) AND (fn06titban = '002021001525
> '::bpchar))

Really! I do not attemp that fn06t does not have an index
with fn06titban ... :)

Now, tehe time of the querys are < 0.02 sec on P4
and <0.05 on Xeon.

Very Thank´s

Alexandre,

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message alexandre :: aldeia digital 2003-01-23 20:31:03 Re: Same query, same performance
Previous Message Hannu Krosing 2003-01-23 17:42:26 Re: Terrible performance on wide selects