| From: | Aidan Van Dyk <aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pietro Pugni <pietro(dot)pugni(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Can't get Dell PE T420 (Perc H710) perform better than a MacMini with PostgreSQL |
| Date: | 2015-04-01 14:32:00 |
| Message-ID: | CAC_2qU-0bchgXxKtOk9jkp9ywU2+30rTEcTCYUw00gLZ9MhC0w@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Pietro Pugni <pietro(dot)pugni(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> *Now let’s propose some query profiling times.*
>
> B type set are transactions, so it's impossible for me to post EXPLAIN
> ANALYZE results. I've extracted two querys from a single transactions and
> executed the twos on both system. Here are the results:
>
> *T420*
>
> Query B_1 [55999.649 ms + 0.639 ms] http://explain.depesz.com/s/LbM
>
> Query B_2 [95664.832 ms + 0.523 ms] http://explain.depesz.com/s/v06
>
> *MacMini*
>
> Query B_1 [56315.614 ms] http://explain.depesz.com/s/uZTx
>
> Query B_2 [44890.813 ms] http://explain.depesz.com/s/y7Dk
>
Looking at the 2 B_2 queries (since they are so drastically different), the
in-memory quicksorts stand out on the Dell as being *drastically* slower
than the disk-based sorts on your mac-mini....
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Wei Shan | 2015-04-01 14:44:15 | Re: Can't get Dell PE T420 (Perc H710) perform better than a MacMini with PostgreSQL |
| Previous Message | Ilya Kosmodemiansky | 2015-04-01 14:27:20 | Re: Can't get Dell PE T420 (Perc H710) perform better than a MacMini with PostgreSQL |