From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 7.4beta2 vs 7.3.3 |
Date: | 2003-09-19 02:40:08 |
Message-ID: | 7535.1063939208@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hm, it sure looks to be exactly the same plan. The performance
>> difference seems to be just that the seqscans are faster. I surmise
>> that in the 7.3 database you had a lot of dead rows, or at least a lot
>> of free space. Possibly you need to vacuum more often to keep down the
>> amount of junk in the tables.
> The two databases were created from scratch and the first
> operation on it ( after a vacuum analyze ) was just that query.
Y'know, I'd love to think that 7.4 is 2x faster than 7.3 on seqscanning,
but I just can't believe that. We didn't do anything that could account
for such a speedup. So there's got to be some inconsistency in your
test conditions.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-19 02:50:27 | Re: Array Parameters on protocol 3.0 |
Previous Message | Jenny Zhang | 2003-09-19 00:52:41 | Re: osdl-dbt3 run results - puzzled by the execution |