Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: old server, new server, same performance

From: Scott Carey <scott(at)richrelevance(dot)com>
To: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Piotr Legiecki <piotrlg(at)sci(dot)pam(dot)szczecin(dot)pl>,"pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: old server, new server, same performance
Date: 2010-05-15 00:46:07
Message-ID: 15BF9CDD-456D-4157-A308-C76C6C631672@richrelevance.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance
On May 14, 2010, at 3:52 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote:

> 2010/5/14 Piotr Legiecki <piotrlg(at)sci(dot)pam(dot)szczecin(dot)pl>:
>> So what is the problem? My simple 'benchmarks' I have done with pgAdmin in
>> spare time.
>> 
>> pgAdmin is the latest 1.8.2 on both D and E.
>> Using pgAdmin on my (D) computer I have run SELECT * from some_table; and
>> noted the execution time on both A and B servers:
> 
> So, any chance you'll run it like I asked:
> 
> select count(*) from some_table;
> 
> ?

I agree that select * is a very bad test and probably the problem here.  Even if you do 'select * from foo' locally to avoid the network and pipe it to /dev/null, it is _significantly_ slower than count(*) because of all the data serialization.

> 
> -- 
> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance


In response to

pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Sarwani DwinantoDate: 2010-05-15 02:26:43
Subject: Re: old server, new server, same performance
Previous:From: Scott MarloweDate: 2010-05-14 22:52:43
Subject: Re: old server, new server, same performance

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group