Re: The good, old times

From: Guillaume Cottenceau <gc(at)mnc(dot)ch>
To: mladen(dot)gogala(at)vmsinfo(dot)com
Cc: "pgsql-performance\(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: The good, old times
Date: 2011-01-12 14:16:03
Message-ID: 87hbdeqkbg.fsf@meuh.mnc.lan
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Mladen Gogala <mladen.gogala 'at' vmsinfo.com> writes:

> I am running a postgres update on one of my machines:
>
> Downloading Packages:
> (1/7): postgresql90-plpython-9.0.2-2PGDG.rhel5.x86_64.rp | 50 kB
> 00:02 (2/7): postgresql90-plperl-9.0.2-2PGDG.rhel5.x86_64.rpm |
> 51 kB 00:03 (3/7):
> postgresql90-libs-9.0.2-2PGDG.rhel5.x86_64.rpm | 217 kB 00:14
> (4/7): postgresql90-contrib-9.0.2-2PGDG.rhel5.x86_64.rpm | 451 kB
> 00:40 (5/7): postgresql90-9.0.2-2PGDG.rhel5.x86_64.rpm |
> 1.4 MB 01:57 (6/7):
> postgresql90-devel-9.0.2-2PGDG.rhel5.x86_64.rpm | 1.6 MB 02:48
> (7/7): postgresql90-se (68%) 44% [===== ] 7.0 kB/s | 2.2 MB
> 06:33 ETA
>
> 7 kilobytes per second??? That brings back the times of the good, old
> 9600 USR modems and floppy disks.

What's your point and in what is it related to that ML?

--
Guillaume Cottenceau

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Laszlo Nagy 2011-01-12 14:21:45 Re: Slow query + why bitmap index scan??
Previous Message Mladen Gogala 2011-01-12 13:49:01 The good, old times