| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff <threshar(at)torgo(dot)978(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Darcy Buskermolen <darcy(at)wavefire(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Sun vs a P2. Interesting results. |
| Date: | 2003-08-26 19:37:29 |
| Message-ID: | 20030826193729.GG64198@home.samurai.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 03:05:12PM -0400, Jeff wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2003, Darcy Buskermolen wrote:
> > I'm still seeing differences in the planner estimates, have you run a VACUUM
> > ANALYZE prior to running these tests?
> >
> I did. I shall retry that.. but the numbers (the cost estimates) are
> pretty close on both. the actual times are very different.
I don't see why you need to bother, the query plans & cost estimates
are similar enough I doubt that's the problem.
> As I said in my first email IO isn't the problem here - the data set is
> small enough that it is all cached (~10MB). iostat reports 0 activity on
> the disks on both the sun and p2.
Would it be possible to get a profile (e.g. gprof output) for a postgres
backend executing the query on the Sun machine?
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | scott.marlowe | 2003-08-26 22:10:35 | Re: Best tweak for fast results.. ? |
| Previous Message | Jeff | 2003-08-26 19:05:12 | Re: Sun vs a P2. Interesting results. |