| From: | Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: 7.4beta2 vs 7.3.3 |
| Date: | 2003-09-20 10:27:20 |
| Message-ID: | 3F6C2B88.8020308@bigfoot.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> writes:
>
>>The select take long:
>>Postgres7.3.3: average 4000 ms
>>Postgres7.4b2: average 2600 ms
>>you can experiment your self with the dump that I gave you
>
>
> Hm. I tried to duplicate your results. I'm getting about 5400 msec
> versus 4200 msec, which is a nice version-to-version improvement but
> not as large as you're seeing. (I have --enable-cassert on, though,
> and that may be cancelling some of the percentage gain.)
May be, I have the --enable-cassert off.
What about the wrong row expected ?
Anyway if the rows expected are 400 ( instead of 43 ) why not an index
scan, with 400 rows on 1500000 seems a good choise do an index scan,
isn't it ?
Regards
Gaetano Mendola
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Meskes | 2003-09-20 10:33:34 | Re: ECPG interface: 7.4beta3 compile failure; CVS tip compile failure |
| Previous Message | Carlos Guzman Alvarez | 2003-09-20 10:18:28 | Re: Array Parameters on protocol 3.0 |