From: | zeljko <zeljko(at)holobit(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: compressed protocol |
Date: | 2006-09-15 16:24:09 |
Message-ID: | eeeju2$1jvr$1@news.hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Michael Fuhr wrote:
> That's a tenuous conclusion; it assumes that the data transfer is
Are you trying to say that data won't be compressed ?
> what's taking all the time. Query planning and execution and
> client-side processing must also be taken into account. Using a
> sniffer to observe the amount of data transferred would be a more
> appropriate test.
>
From client connection:
EXPLAIN SELECT sfi,nvi,jmi FROM articles ORDER BY sif;
QUERY PLAN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Index Scan using articles_pkey on articles (cost=0.00..1031.61
rows=12410 width=42)
(1 row)
So it returns 12410 rows :
sfi = INTEGER, nvi = varchar(50), jmi = varchar(3).
Yes, I know that my conclusions are tenuous, but what to say when
both tests returns result in approx. amount of time
(compressed or not).
Using compression on my nTier (kbmMW (ZLIB) ) same query returns
in 9 seconds (!=20 secs !). (same client, same server , same query).
cheers,
zac
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Daniel Corbe | 2006-09-15 16:33:37 | Migration |
Previous Message | Michael Fuhr | 2006-09-15 16:22:08 | Re: compressed protocol |