Re: Wierd issues

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Andrew Matthews" <andrew(dot)m(at)corp(dot)dslextreme(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Wierd issues
Date: 2004-04-09 15:02:11
Message-ID: 25869.1081522931@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

"Andrew Matthews" <andrew(dot)m(at)corp(dot)dslextreme(dot)com> writes:
> [ PG 7.3.4 much slower than 7.2.1 ]
>
> Both have same databases, Both have had vacume full ran on them.

You did ANALYZE too, right?

The bulk of the time is evidently going into the seqscan on users in
each case:

> -> Seq Scan on users u (cost=0.00..1938.51 rows=71283 width=4) (actual time=0.81..30119.58 rows=70809 loops=1)

> -> Seq Scan on users u (cost=0.00..1888.85 rows=71548 width=4) (actual time=18.38..2277152.51 rows=71028 loops=1)
> Filter: (get_pwd(username, '127.0.0.1'::character varying, '101'::character varying, 'MD5'::character varying) IS NOT NULL)

I have to suspect that the inefficiency is inside this get_pwd()
function, but you didn't tell us anything about that...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2004-04-09 16:02:00 Re: [PERFORM] Raw devices vs. Filesystems
Previous Message Tom Lane 2004-04-09 05:26:51 Re: tsearch query plan