From: | GB Clark II <postgres(at)vsservices(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tille, Andreas" <TilleA(at)rki(dot)de> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Performance question (stripped down the problem) |
Date: | 2001-09-18 13:02:43 |
Message-ID: | 01091808024300.35629@prime.vsservices.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tuesday 18 September 2001 07:06, Tille, Andreas wrote:
-SNIP-
>
> echo "SELECT Hauptdaten_Fall.MeldeKategorie, Count(Hauptdaten_Fall.ID) AS
> Anz FROM Hauptdaten_Fall WHERE (((Hauptdaten_Fall.IstAktuell)=20)) GROUP BY
> Hauptdaten_Fall.MeldeKategorie ORDER BY Hauptdaten_Fall.MeldeKategorie;" |
> psql ifsgtest > result
>
> let i="`date +%s` - $START"
> echo "Query took ${i} seconds." >> result
>
>
> (which should just measure the time needed for this task). It took my
> E250 (2x400MHz, 2GB) server 20 seconds and this is definitely much to
> long for our application.
>
> Any hints are gratly appreciated
>
> Andreas.
Ok, I tried the query on two boxes:
#1 800Mhz duron IDE drives - 11 secs
#2 800Mhz P3 SCSI drives - 5.35 secs
NOTE: the P3 has alot larger buffers and stuff....(more mem..:))
What does the function plpgsql_call_handler do?
Could this be where the slow down is?
If it is minor, then how are your buffers and shared mem set?
I am by NO means an expert, but I'm quite willing to help if I can.
GB
--
GB Clark II | Roaming FreeBSD Admin
gclarkii(at)VSServices(dot)COM | General Geek
CTHULU for President - Why choose the lesser of two evils?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gunnar Rønning | 2001-09-18 13:24:53 | Re: Major change to CVS effective immediately ... |
Previous Message | Justin Clift | 2001-09-18 12:43:09 | Re: Sequence query |