From: | Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater(at)gmx(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_dump and --inserts / --column-inserts |
Date: | 2010-07-17 17:46:23 |
Message-ID: | i1sq91$31n$1@dough.gmane.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
Tom Lane wrote on 17.07.2010 19:35:
> Thomas Kellerer<spam_eater(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote on 17.07.2010 16:36:
>>> Well, nobody's offered any actual *numbers* here.
>
>> I measured the runtime as seen from the JDBC client and as reported by explain analyze (the last line reading "Total runtime:")
>
> The "runtime" from explain analyze really should not be measurably
> different, since it doesn't include parse time or data transmission
> time, and you ought to get the same execution plan with or without the
> column names.
Interesting.
My intend _was_ to exclude data transmission from the test by using explain analyze, but I'm surprised that it doesn't include the parsing in the execution time reported from that.
> I'd dismiss those numbers as being within experimental
> error, except it seems odd that they all differ in the same direction.
And it's reproducable (at least on my computer). As I said I ran it 20 times (each run did it for 5,10,... columns) and the values I posted were averages of those runs.
Regards
Thomas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jerry LeVan | 2010-07-17 19:43:56 | Re: Fedora 13 killed dblink this week... |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-07-17 17:35:31 | Re: pg_dump and --inserts / --column-inserts |