Re: Better Hardware, worst Results

From: Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca>
To: al_nunes(at)atua(dot)com(dot)br
Cc: Postgresql Performance <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Better Hardware, worst Results
Date: 2004-11-04 22:58:29
Message-ID: 1099609109.1647.727.camel@home
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Thu, 2004-11-04 at 17:42, al_nunes(at)atua(dot)com(dot)br wrote:
> Citando Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca>:
> > Please send an explain analyze from both.
> I'm sendin three explains. In the first the Dell machine didn't use existing
> indexes, so I turn enable_seqscan off (this is the second explain). The total
> cost decreased, but the total time not. The third explain refers to the cheaper
> (and faster) machine. The last thing is the query itself.

All 3 plans have crappy estimates.

Run ANALYZE in production, then send another explain analyze (as an
attachment please, to avoid linewrap).

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Matt Clark 2004-11-04 22:58:55 Re: Better Hardware, worst Results
Previous Message al_nunes 2004-11-04 22:42:03 Re: Better Hardware, worst Results