Re: old server, new server, same performance

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  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