| From: | Dimi Paun <dimi(at)lattica(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Bad performance on simple query |
| Date: | 2008-11-17 18:14:14 |
| Message-ID: | 1226945654.5760.106.camel@dimi.lattica.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 10:40 -0700, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> I'm guessing a fair bit of that time is pgadminIII prettifying the
> output for you, etc. I.e. it's not all transfer time. Hard to say
> without hooking some kind of profiler in pgadminIII. Is psql running
> local and pgadminIII remotely? Or are they both remote? If both psql
> and pgadminIII are remote (i.e. same basic circumstances) then it's
> got to be a difference in the client causing the extra time. OR is
> this output of explain analyze?
With \timing on I get basically the same output (local vs remote)
in psql (0.668ms vs. 0.760ms). More like it.
WTH is pgadminIII reporting?!?
--
Dimi Paun <dimi(at)lattica(dot)com>
Lattica, Inc.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Page | 2008-11-17 20:47:48 | Re: Bad performance on simple query |
| Previous Message | ries van Twisk | 2008-11-17 17:45:01 | Re: Bad performance on simple query |