| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dimitri <dimitrik(dot)fr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Dimitri Fontaine <dfontaine(at)hi-media(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Any better plan for this query?.. |
| Date: | 2009-05-19 13:35:37 |
| Message-ID: | 1242740137.14551.213.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Tue, 2009-05-19 at 14:00 +0200, Dimitri wrote:
> I may confirm the issue with hash join - it's repeating both with
> prepared and not prepared statements - it's curious because initially
> the response time is lowering near ~1ms (the lowest seen until now)
> and then once workload growing to 16 sessions it's jumping to 2.5ms,
> then with 32 sessions it's 18ms, etc..
Is it just bad all the time, or does it get worse over time?
Do you get the same behaviour as 32 sessions if you run 16 sessions for
twice as long?
--
Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-05-19 14:00:36 | Re: Any better plan for this query?.. |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2009-05-19 13:19:52 | Re: Any better plan for this query?.. |