From: | preetika tyagi <preetikatyagi(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Scott Ribe <scott_ribe(at)elevated-dev(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org General" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: query execution time |
Date: | 2011-03-21 18:03:04 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTimQjE1cMGLPVDH+SNsH4A+Mwx2+_T+rQ1dJAkhV@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-students |
Thank you, Scott!
I tried running the same query after reboot and back-to-back, it was taking
less time in both the cases. It means the problem is something else.
Can there be a reason which is more hardware/operating system specific and
due to which the behavior is not uniform?
Preetika
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 9:06 AM, Scott Ribe <scott_ribe(at)elevated-dev(dot)com>wrote:
> On Mar 21, 2011, at 9:55 AM, preetika tyagi wrote:
>
> > For example, if A is 15 minutes, then B is 1.5 hrs.
>
> Well, considering that random disk access is on the order of 10,000 times
> slower than RAM...
>
> But you can answer the question yourself by comparing the query run against
> cold caches (after a reboot, or various command-line tricks to purge cache)
> vs against warm caches (twice back-to-back).
>
> --
> Scott Ribe
> scott_ribe(at)elevated-dev(dot)com
> http://www.elevated-dev.com/
> (303) 722-0567 voice
>
>
>
>
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-03-21 18:45:36 | Re: foreign data wrappers |
Previous Message | Aljoša Mohorović | 2011-03-21 17:45:32 | postgres conferences missing videos? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-03-21 18:45:36 | Re: foreign data wrappers |
Previous Message | Selena Deckelmann | 2011-03-21 16:57:05 | Re: foreign data wrappers |