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 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sarwani Dwinanto | 2010-05-15 02:26:43 | Re: old server, new server, same performance |
Previous Message | Scott Marlowe | 2010-05-14 22:52:43 | Re: old server, new server, same performance |