Re: PostgreSQL Parallel Processing !

From: "Tomas Vondra" <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>
To: "Marti Raudsepp" <marti(at)juffo(dot)org>
Cc: "sridhar bamandlapally" <sridhar(dot)bn1(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-performance" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL Parallel Processing !
Date: 2012-01-27 09:46:03
Message-ID: 31f8d7cae7e7e0044e368d1cec6e7077.squirrel@sq.gransy.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On 27 Leden 2012, 10:06, Marti Raudsepp wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 06:31, sridhar bamandlapally
> <sridhar(dot)bn1(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> | Id  | Operation         | Name | Rows  | Bytes | Cost (%CPU)| Time    
>> |
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> |   0 | SELECT STATEMENT  |      |  7444K|   944M| 16077   (4)| 00:03:13
>> |
>> |   1 |  TABLE ACCESS FULL| EMP  |  7444K|   944M| 16077   (4)| 00:03:13
>> |
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Sorry to take this off topic, but... Seriously, over 3 minutes to read
> 944 MB of data? That's less than 5 MB/s, what's wrong with your
> database? :)

Yes, those results are quite suspicious. There's probably something
interfering with the queries (other queries, different processes, block
cleanout, ...) or maybe this is purely due to caching.

sridhar, run the queries repeatedly and my quess is the difference will
disappear (and the fist query will be a bit faster I guess).

Tomas

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Kellerer 2012-01-27 09:52:44 Re: PostgreSQL Parallel Processing !
Previous Message Vitalii Tymchyshyn 2012-01-27 09:19:25 Re: PostgreSQL Parallel Processing !