Re: [GENERAL] 9.1 got really fast ;)

2011-10-17 Thread Scott Marlowe
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Tom Lane wrote: > Alban Hertroys writes: >> On 17 October 2011 17:25, Steve Crawford >> wrote: >>> Even stand-alone statements take place within a transaction - just not an >>> explicit one. > >> I doubt that more than 2.368 ms passed between the start of a >> t

Re: [GENERAL] 9.1 got really fast ;)

2011-10-17 Thread Lincoln Yeoh
At 11:44 PM 10/17/2011, Tom Lane wrote: Alban Hertroys writes: > On 17 October 2011 17:25, Steve Crawford wrote: >> Even stand-alone statements take place within a transaction - just not an >> explicit one. > I doubt that more than 2.368 ms passed between the start of a > transaction and the

Re: [GENERAL] 9.1 got really fast ;)

2011-10-17 Thread Tom Lane
Alban Hertroys writes: > On 17 October 2011 17:25, Steve Crawford > wrote: >> Even stand-alone statements take place within a transaction - just not an >> explicit one. > I doubt that more than 2.368 ms passed between the start of a > transaction and the stand-alone statement it's wrapping thou

Re: [GENERAL] 9.1 got really fast ;)

2011-10-17 Thread Alban Hertroys
On 17 October 2011 17:25, Steve Crawford wrote: > On 10/16/2011 04:39 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote: >> >> On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Tom Lane  wrote: >>> >>> Scott Marlowe  writes: On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Thomas Kellerer  wrote: > > Total runtime: -2.368 ms<< t

Re: [GENERAL] 9.1 got really fast ;)

2011-10-17 Thread Steve Crawford
On 10/16/2011 04:39 PM, Scott Marlowe wrote: On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Scott Marlowe writes: On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Thomas Kellerer wrote: Total runtime: -2.368 ms<< this is amazing ;) I get something similar when I do select now()-query_start from pg_s

Re: [GENERAL] 9.1 got really fast ;)

2011-10-16 Thread Scott Marlowe
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > Scott Marlowe writes: >> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Thomas Kellerer 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

Re: [GENERAL] 9.1 got really fast ;)

2011-10-16 Thread Tom Lane
Scott Marlowe writes: > On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Thomas Kellerer 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

Re: [GENERAL] 9.1 got really fast ;)

2011-10-16 Thread Scott Marlowe
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Thomas Kellerer wrote: > > Total runtime: -2.368 ms   << this is amazing ;) > > This is with 9.1.1 on a Windows XP machine I get something similar when I do select now()-query_start from pg_stat_activity on my Ubuntu 10.04 / pg 8.3 servers. -- Sent via pgsql

Re: [GENERAL] 9.1 got really fast ;)

2011-10-16 Thread Filip Rembiałkowski
2011/10/15 Chris Travers > > > On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Grzegorz Jaskiewicz wrote: > >> >> On 15 Oct 2011, at 21:20, Thomas Kellerer wrote: >> > >> > Total runtime: -2.368 ms << this is amazing ;) >> > >> > This is with 9.1.1 on a Windows XP machine >> >> Are you saying that Windows

Re: [GENERAL] 9.1 got really fast ;)

2011-10-16 Thread Edson Richter
Em 15-10-2011 18:18, John R Pierce escreveu: On 10/15/11 1:59 PM, Chris Travers wrote: Are you saying that Windows XP is the ultimate server OS for high performance PostgreSQL installations?  Are there optimizations that this platform can t

Re: [GENERAL] 9.1 got really fast ;)

2011-10-16 Thread Dmitriy Igrishin
2011/10/16 John R Pierce > On 10/15/11 1:59 PM, Chris Travers wrote: > >> Are you saying that Windows XP is the ultimate server OS for high >> performance PostgreSQL installations? Are there optimizations that this >> platform can take advantage of, perhaps extending Pg timelines into actual >>

Re: [GENERAL] 9.1 got really fast ;)

2011-10-15 Thread John R Pierce
On 10/15/11 1:59 PM, Chris Travers wrote: Are you saying that Windows XP is the ultimate server OS for high performance PostgreSQL installations? Are there optimizations that this platform can take advantage of, perhaps extending Pg timelines into actual time travel that are not available on o

Re: [GENERAL] 9.1 got really fast ;)

2011-10-15 Thread Chris Travers
On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 1:33 PM, Grzegorz Jaskiewicz wrote: > > On 15 Oct 2011, at 21:20, Thomas Kellerer wrote: > > > > Total runtime: -2.368 ms << this is amazing ;) > > > wow :) > > > This is with 9.1.1 on a Windows XP machine > That explains it ;) > > > Are you saying that Windows XP is

Re: [GENERAL] 9.1 got really fast ;)

2011-10-15 Thread Grzegorz Jaskiewicz
On 15 Oct 2011, at 21:20, Thomas Kellerer wrote: > > Total runtime: -2.368 ms << this is amazing ;) > wow :) > This is with 9.1.1 on a Windows XP machine That explains it ;) -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http

[GENERAL] 9.1 got really fast ;)

2011-10-15 Thread Thomas Kellerer
I have to share this, a statement that is finished before I even run it ;) Limit (cost=0.00..527.34 rows=20 width=4) (actual time=0.046..-2.436 rows=20 loops=1) Output: id, (count(*)) Buffers: shared hit=191 -> GroupAggregate (cost=0.00..12403455.78 rows=470416 width=4) (actual time=0