Re: Better Hardware, worst Results

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.
>
>
> Nested Loop (cost=9008.68..13596.97 rows=1 width=317) (actual
>time=9272.803..65287.304 rows=2604 loops=1)
> Nested Loop (cost=5155.51..19320.20 rows=1 width=317) (actual
>time=480.311..62530.121 rows=2604 loops=1)
> Hash Join (cost=2.23..11191.77 rows=9 width=134) (actual
>time=341.708..21868.167 rows=2604 loops=1)
>
>
>
Well the plan is completely different on the dev machine. Therefore
either the PG version or the postgresql.conf is different. No other
possible answer.

M