From: | Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Subject: | Re: 7.4beta2 vs 7.3.3 |
Date: | 2003-09-19 13:38:33 |
Message-ID: | 3F6B06D9.5090500@bigfoot.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> writes:
>
>>Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>>Hm, it sure looks to be exactly the same plan. The performance
>>>difference seems to be just that the seqscans are faster. I surmise
>>>that in the 7.3 database you had a lot of dead rows, or at least a lot
>>>of free space. Possibly you need to vacuum more often to keep down the
>>>amount of junk in the tables.
>
>
>>The two databases were created from scratch and the first
>>operation on it ( after a vacuum analyze ) was just that query.
>
>
> Y'know, I'd love to think that 7.4 is 2x faster than 7.3 on seqscanning,
> but I just can't believe that. We didn't do anything that could account
> for such a speedup. So there's got to be some inconsistency in your
> test conditions.
The machine is the same, the disk too, the main values in the
configuration file are the same ( I put the confs in attachment ).
I was alo able to remove the useless column on that tables, and I
put the dump here:
The select take long:
Postgres7.3.3: average 4000 ms
Postgres7.4b2: average 2600 ms
you can experiment your self with the dump that I gave you
Regards
Gaetano Mendola
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
postgresql7.3.3.conf | text/plain | 769 bytes |
postgresql7.4b2.conf | text/plain | 838 bytes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Oleg Bartunov | 2003-09-19 13:58:20 | Re: NuSphere and PostgreSQL for windows |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2003-09-19 13:12:27 | Re: osdl-dbt3 run results - puzzled by the execution plans |