Re: 9.1 got really fast ;)

From: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: 9.1 got really fast ;)
Date: 2011-10-16 23:39:18
Message-ID: CAOR=d=2G_hcM-vTezAVt5eKQX5d4P-TL6U-N0cb2CYmBeWtYcw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Thomas Kellerer <spam_eater(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>>> Total runtime: -2.368 ms   <<==== this is amazing ;)
>
>> I get something similar when I do select now()-query_start from
>> pg_stat_activity on my Ubuntu 10.04 / pg 8.3 servers.
>
> Within a transaction block that's not surprising, because now() is
> defined as transaction start time not statement start time.

No transaction block.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Scott Marlowe 2011-10-17 00:01:20 Re: index bloat question
Previous Message Tom Lane 2011-10-16 23:24:50 Re: 9.1 got really fast ;)