From: | Leon <leon(at)udmnet(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] All things equal, we are still alot slower then MySQL? |
Date: | 1999-09-20 13:50:12 |
Message-ID: | 37E63B94.103BDE68@udmnet.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> The Hermit Hacker <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org> writes:
> > MySQL: 0.498u 0.150s 0:02.50 25.6% 10+1652k 0+0io 0pf+0w
> > PgSQL: 0.494u 0.061s 0:19.78 2.7% 10+1532k 0+0io 0pf+0w
> > From the 'time' numbers, MySQL is running ~17sec faster, but uses up 23%
> > more CPU to do this...so where is our slowdown?
>
> It's gotta be going into I/O, obviously. (I hate profilers that can't
> count disk accesses...) My guess is that the index scans are losing
> because they wind up touching too many disk pages. You show
>
On that particular machine that can be verified easily, I hope.
(there seems to be enough RAM). You can simply issue 10 to 100 such
queries in a row. Hopefully after the first query all needed info
will be in a disk cache, so the rest queries will not draw info from
disk. That will be a clean experiment.
--
Leon.
-------
He knows he'll never have to answer for any of his theories actually
being put to test. If they were, they would be contaminated by reality.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 1999-09-20 13:55:19 | Re: [HACKERS] why do shmem attach? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1999-09-20 13:44:09 | Re: [HACKERS] why do shmem attach? |