Re: PG 7.0 is 2.5 times slower running a big report

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Bryan White" <bryan(at)arcamax(dot)com>
Cc: "Jesse Estevez" <jestevez(at)travel-italy(dot)com>, "pgsql-general" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: PG 7.0 is 2.5 times slower running a big report
Date: 2000-05-25 16:49:36
Message-ID: 23372.959273376@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

"Bryan White" <bryan(at)arcamax(dot)com> writes:
> I have recoverd the performance lost when I moved to Postgres 7.0 by
> executing SET enable_indexscan = OFF before creating my cursors and
> turning it back on for the inner loop query. It may even be faster
> then before so I am happy.

OK, so it was the indexscans that were hurting. (7.0 has new sorting
code too, so I was a little afraid that the problem might be with the
sorts. Evidently not.)

This suggests that at least on your setup, the default value of 4.0 for
random_page_cost might still be too low. I have not tried to measure
that number on a Linux machine, just on machines with BSD-derived
filesystems. Maybe Linux does a lot worse with random accesses than
BSD? Needs looking into.

> It seems that with index scans the cursors start producing data right away
> (but the overall rate is slower). With sequential scan and sort the report
> gets no data for the first 30 minutes and then runs at about 4 times the
> rate of the index scan.

Right, that's what you'd expect: the sort has to be completed before it
knows which row to deliver first, but an indexscan has no such startup
cost.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2000-05-25 17:08:17 Re: PG 7.0 is 2.5 times slower running a big report
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-05-25 16:32:40 Re: Re: [ANNOUNCE] PostgreSQL 7.0 a success