Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Query Performance SQL Server vs. Postgresql

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz
Cc: "Humair Mohammed" <humairm(at)hotmail(dot)com>, pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Query Performance SQL Server vs. Postgresql
Date: 2010-11-21 17:16:01
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-performance
tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz writes:
>> Second, I modified the work_mem setting to 2GB (reloaded config) and I see
>> a response time of 38 seconds. Results below from EXPLAIN ANALYZE:

> How did you reload the config? Using 'kill -HUP pid'? That should work
> fine. Have you cheched 'work_mem' after the reload?

> Because the explain plans are exactly the same (structure, estimated
> costs). The really interesting bit is this and it did not change at all

>    Buckets: 1024 Batches: 64  Memory Usage: 650kB

If that didn't change, I'm prepared to bet that the OP didn't actually
manage to change the active value of work_mem.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-performance by date

Next:From: Robert HaasDate: 2010-11-21 18:55:54
Subject: Re: Query Performance SQL Server vs. Postgresql
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2010-11-21 16:25:37
Subject: Re: autovacuum blocks the operations of other manual vacuum

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group