Re: about multiprocessingmassdata

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Tomas Vondra" <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz>,<pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: about multiprocessingmassdata
Date: 2012-04-05 15:01:25
Message-ID: 4F7D6D750200002500046BED@gw.wicourts.gov
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Tomas Vondra <tv(at)fuzzy(dot)cz> wrote:
> On 5.4.2012 15:44, superman0920 wrote:

>> Today I install PG and MySQL at a Server. I insert 850000 rows
>> record to each db.
>> I execute "select count(*) from poi_all_new" at two db.
>> MySQL takes 0.9s
>> PG takes 364s

> Are you sure the comparison was fair, i.e. both machines
> containing the same amount of data (not number of rows, amount of
> data), configured properly etc.?

Don't forget the "hint bits" issue -- if the count(*) was run
immediately after the load (without a chance for autovacuum to get
in there), all the data was re-written in place to save hint
information. I remember how confusing that was for me the first
time I saw it. It's very easy to get a false impression of overall
PostgreSQL performance from that type of test, and it's the sort of
test a lot of people will do on an ad hoc basis.

-Kevin

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2012-04-05 15:34:36 Re: Planner selects slow "Bitmap Heap Scan" when "Index Scan" is faster
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2012-04-05 14:47:46 Re: about multiprocessingmassdata