I'm sorry, they are in milliseconds, not seconds.
The time used is quite same to the result of "explain analyze select
" I pasted above,
which was " Total runtime: 0.479 ms".
Greetings,
Ning
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On Thursday 16 J
Hi Andres,
By executing
#explain analyze execute test_query;
the first execution cost 0.389 seconds
the second cost 0.285 seconds
Greetings,
Ning
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
> On Thursday 16 July 2009 03:11:29 ning wrote:
>> Hi Andres,
>>
>> The
Hi Andres,
The log for the test you suggested is as follows in PostgreSQL8.2.4,
but I cannot find a clue to prove or prove not PostgreSQL is doing
plan caching.
Best regards,
Ning
-
job=# prepare test_query as SELECT
oid_,void,nameId,tag,intval,lowerbound,upperbound,crossfeeddir,feeddir
(cost=0.00..25.10
rows=1510 width=12) (never executed)
Total runtime: 0.479 ms
(46 rows)
-
Best regards,
Ning
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 7:37 AM, Mike Ivanov wrote:
> ning wrote:
>>
>> The log is really long,
>
> Which usually signals a problem with the query.
>
>&
PostgreSQL is quicker than DB2 for the
first execution.
Thank you.
Ning
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Craig
> Ringer wrote:
>> On Wed, 2009-07-15 at 12:10 +0900, ning wrote:
>>
>>> First execution: PostgreSQL 0.00
eed up PostgreSQL in this
scenario, which is a wrong way perhaps.
Thank you.
Ning
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Craig
Ringer wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-07-15 at 12:10 +0900, ning wrote:
>
>> First execution: PostgreSQL 0.006277 seconds / DB2 0.009028 seconds
>> Second execut
think memory is the reason.
Could anybody give some advice to speed up in repeated execution in
PostgreSQL or
give an explanation why DB2 is so mush faster in repeated execution?
Thank you.
ning
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to
