| From: | z(dot)nijmeyers(at)cable(dot)a2000(dot)nl |
|---|---|
| To: | PostgreSQL General <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Performance question (stripped down the problem) |
| Date: | 2001-09-20 11:39:30 |
| Message-ID: | 20010920133930.A18305@node10065.a2000.nl |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Thu, Sep 20, 2001 at 11:10:02AM +0200, Herbert Liechti wrote:
> I tried it. See my actions below. The main performance boost is
> reached by creating an index and disabling the sequential scan:
> Without any index;
> real 0m18.128s
> user 0m0.010s
> sys 0m0.010s
>
> Same statement with index
> real 0m18.259s
> user 0m0.020s
> sys 0m0.010s
> no difference
>
> now disable seqscan:
> time psql tt <<END
> set enable_seqscan = off;
> real 0m3.701s
> user 0m0.010s
> sys 0m0.000s
same here (dual PIII-866, Debian, 512 MB, raid1+0)
real 0m6.472s
user 0m0.000s
sys 0m0.010s
real 0m6.195s
user 0m0.010s
sys 0m0.000s
real 0m2.885s
user 0m0.010s
sys 0m0.000s
tinus
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2001-09-20 12:00:22 | Re: anoncvs troubles (was Re: CVS vs anoncvs) |
| Previous Message | Christof Petig | 2001-09-20 10:46:13 | Re: anoncvs troubles (was Re: CVS vs anoncvs) |